BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Transport for London Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended, opposed and deferred until Thursday 5 March (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport was asked—

Grass-roots Sport

Grahame Morris: What recent discussions he has had with the Premier League on funding for grass-roots sport.

Sajid Javid: The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), who is responsible for sport, and I have regular discussions with the Premier League and the Football Association. Together we work in partnership to ensure that funding for grass-roots football remains strong.

Grahame Morris: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but does he recognise that there is a growing crisis in grass-roots football, in terms of facilities, pitch quality and fees, which local authorities have often been increasing because of local government cuts? Will he back Labour’s call for the Premier League to use some of its new windfall to meet its 5% commitment to fund grass-roots football?

Sajid Javid: I join the hon. Gentleman in his suggestion that there should be more investment in grass-roots football, and he will know that the Government allocated more money in the last autumn statement. Together with the Premier League and Football Association money, that is £100 million of new money going into grass-roots football over the next three years. On his point about the Premier League, I should say, first, that the Premier League already does a lot—I welcome that and we should all commend it. However, with the recent increase in its finances, we can all expect it to do more.

Damian Collins: Moving the FIFA World cup in 2022 to the winter could have significant financial consequences for the Premier League and for all levels of football in England and Europe.
	Will the Secretary of State be raising this issue with FIFA? Will he be discussing it with other European Sports Ministers?

Sajid Javid: A few years ago when it was first announced that the 2022 World cup would be held in Qatar, my son Suli, who was 10 at the time, said to me, “How are they going to hold this competition in such blazing heat?” If my 10-year-old son knew that, I do not know why Sepp did not. We take a close interest in this, but ultimately the decision has to be made by the relevant football authorities.

John Leech: Previous TV deals with the Premier League have not resulted in comparable increases in funding for the grass roots and football family. Does the Secretary of State accept that the only way of guaranteeing future funding is for this Parliament to legislate to ensure that 5% of Premier League revenue goes to the grass-roots and football family?

Sajid Javid: I do not accept that there is a need for legislation. What there is a need for is a continued and active dialogue between Government and the Premier League to make sure that its investment in grass-roots football continues. As I said, given the recent news that the Premier League had of a windfall, we should encourage it to do more.

Film Festivals

Tom Greatrex: What assessment he has made of the role of film festivals in promoting the creative industries in the UK.

Sajid Javid: Film festivals make a valuable contribution to promoting the film economy and enhancing the cultural life of the UK. In addition to running two festivals of its own, the BFI, as the Government’s lead agency for film, provides £1 million of lottery funding each year to support film festivals right across the UK.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I am sure he will be aware that one festival the BFI helps to fund is the Glasgow film festival, the UK’s third largest and best festival, which is under way in Glasgow and is finishing on Sunday with the UK premier of “Force Majeure”. He has talked about the BFI funding, but given that the BFI’s grant in aid budget will be 10% lower next year than it was last year, what is he going to do to ensure that film festivals such as Glasgow’s continue to get that vital support?

Sajid Javid: Like the hon. Gentleman, I am delighted about the Glasgow film festival, which I believe is in its 10th year and which is going from strength to strength. He will know that it has received funding: it has been awarded £25,000 by the BFI this year, which is a good result. As well as the grant in aid funding, the BFI has access to lottery funding, which it is using wisely. That is partly reflected in the success of British film: just last year we had a record year of investment in British film and of success, and I am sure that he would join me in welcoming that.

Mark Pritchard: Of course a Shropshire film festival would be very welcome indeed. Is the Secretary of State aware of a recent decision by Gapictures, which was due to film “Dracula” on location in Shropshire, to switch to another European country? Given that Shropshire has been home to many famous films, including, more recently “Atonement”, will the Secretary of State look at new ways in which the United Kingdom can keep those production companies that want to film in locations such as Shropshire, rather than have them switch to other European countries?

Mr Speaker: We assume the hon. Gentleman is not auditioning for the lead role in the said film.

Sajid Javid: If my hon. Friend had auditioned, a different decision might have been made!
	There has been an increase in the number of films made in the regions of the UK. “Dracula Untold” was recently made in Northern Ireland. We have had “Outlander” in Scotland, “Testament of Youth” in Yorkshire and “Far from the Madding Crowd”, which is set in Dorset, to name but a few, so there has been great success in regional films. What my hon. Friend says about Shropshire is quite right. There are some fantastic locations and there is some fantastic talent in Shropshire, and I think the film industry should be listening.

Harriet Harman: In a week when we have seen British success at the Oscars and London Fashion Week, and last night at the Brits, no one should be in any doubt about the importance of our film, fashion and music industries and all our creative industries. The basis of future jobs and investment in those creative industries depends on the protection of intellectual property. Will the Secretary of State ensure that, in consideration of the European digital single market, he will be absolutely vigilant to protect our creative industries, including small and medium-sized enterprises, and ensure that he rethinks the paper that the Prime Minister sent to Juncker, which would allow for changes that would pose a real threat to many independent projects? Will he insist that there is time for proper consultation before its implementation?

Sajid Javid: The right hon. Lady is right about the importance of intellectual property to our creative industries. One of the reasons why we have been successful in this area for many years is that as a Government we have taken the right approach. It is right that the EU looks at the issue. It will be a good thing in principle for the creative industries throughout Europe to have a better single digital market, but we must take a well-balanced approach. The paper that the right hon. Lady refers to was a discussion paper. The Government have not decided on their final policy or approach, and there should be more consultation.

Superfast Broadband

Mark Lazarowicz: For what proportion of parliamentary constituencies the 95% target for the roll-out of superfast broadband will be reached by 2017.

Sajid Javid: Ninety-five per cent. of the UK will have access to superfast broadband by 2017. I have placed our estimate of coverage by constituency in the House of Commons Library.

Mark Lazarowicz: I can tell the Secretary of State that thousands of people in my constituency, one of the most urban in Scotland, have no guarantee of getting superfast broadband by 2017 or any date after that. I have raised this with local government, the Scottish Government and the UK Government. I do not want to ascribe blame; I want to see some action so that the residents who have contacted me again and again, such as the ones in Western Harbour, Leith who contacted me recently, will have some guarantee that they will get superfast broadband in their houses.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of superfast broadband both to residents and to businesses. Considerable progress has been made in his constituency in the past five years. Today, 87% of homes and businesses there have access to superfast broadband. That will rise to 98% by 2017, and that is better than the national target of 95% by that time. However, I hear what he says, and he is right to mention the importance of the issue.

David Nuttall: The villages of Affetside and Holcombe in my constituency will not be covered by the roll-out of superfast broadband in phases 1 or 2, so when villagers ask me when they will be covered, what should I tell them?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. He should tell those villagers that the Government have an active programme to reach the most remote areas with superfast broadband. He will be interested to know that in the middle of last year we undertook a pilot, with seven projects using mostly wireless and other types of hybrid technology. We are now having a good look at the results of that pilot, and I shall be able to make a further announcement shortly.

Kate Green: Businesses in my constituency, from farmers in Carrington to multi-million pound exporters on Trafford Park, complain that they are still waiting for superfast broadband. They are paying 10 times the price for one fifth of the speed, with a damaging effect on their business. These are not remote rural areas; they are a stone’s throw from Manchester city centre. Can the Secretary of State explain why they are waiting so long for the basic support that their businesses need?

Sajid Javid: There has been a significant improvement in superfast broadband access over the past five years. Coverage throughout the UK has doubled from 40% to 80%. We have the best coverage among large EU nations and the highest average speeds, as well as the lowest average prices in Europe, but we can still do better. In urban areas, it is difficult, if not sometimes impossible, for the Government to provide a subsidy, as they do in non-commercial areas, but I am looking actively at what more we can do in urban areas.

Alan Reid: The experience of my constituents this winter is that it is too easy for BT to declare MBORC—matters beyond our reasonable control—and then to take months to repair faults, or not turn up for appointments. Will the Secretary of
	State examine BT’s licensing conditions with a view to tightening up the rules so that it cannot just use the MBORC cop-out?

Sajid Javid: This important issue has been raised several times, and Ofcom frequently looks at the role of organisations such as BT to ensure that the market is as competitive as possible. However, I will take a closer look at the situation in my hon. Friend’s area.

Mike Kane: I have been working with the Altrincham and Sale chamber of commerce, which tells me that it is vital that businesses club together to ensure that communication nodes go to more remote parts, even in urban areas. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital that businesses co-operate to ensure that they can get the broadband they need?

Sajid Javid: I do agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will know that we offer vouchers for businesses in more than 22 cities under the superconnected cities programme, of which more than 10,000 companies have taken advantage. Many of the companies have clubbed together and I encourage others to do so.

Philip Hollobone: Villages in the borough of Kettering on the Northamptonshire-Leicestershire border—right in the middle of England—will be among the last to get broadband, at the end of 2017, yet innovative cross-border thinking involving BT exchanges on the other side of the county boundary might bring about a quicker solution. Will the Secretary of State encourage such an innovative approach?

Sajid Javid: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who has taken a strong interest in this matter. I have heard him speak in the House on behalf of his constituents on a number of occasions, and once again he comes up with an excellent idea, which we shall follow up.

Tessa Munt: The Government’s own figures show that Somerset’s rate of access to superfast broadband is only 41%, which hardly meets the needs of rural businesses and residents. Connecting Devon and Somerset allows bids from other suppliers in the Dartmoor and Exmoor national parks, but I understand that, because of the reason of screening of information, only BT, as a monopoly supplier, will be able to bid for the second phase. I have written to the Competition and Markets Authority; will the Secretary of State do the same and investigate exactly what has happened?

Sajid Javid: As my hon. Friend raises a specific issue, I will have to take a closer look at it. I am glad that she has written to the Competition and Markets Authority, but if this is a competition issue, it should be dealt with by the independent regulator. However, if there is more that she thinks I can do, I shall take a closer look.

Tourism

Christopher Pincher: What assessment he has made of the contribution of tourism to the economy.

Helen Grant: The tourism industry was worth an estimated £127 billion, gross value added, to the UK economy in 2013. Some £56 billion of that is direct contribution. Tourism supports 3.1 million jobs in the UK.

Christopher Pincher: The economy of Staffordshire and Tamworth has a growing leisure and tourism component, but that is putting an increasing strain on our transport infrastructure. Will my hon. Friend encourage the Department for Transport and Staffordshire county council to invest in local roads so that they will be fit for our leisure economy?

Helen Grant: Last December, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government announced £1.4 billion for road investment in the midlands, creating about 900 new construction jobs for the area. That will help to support the leisure industry in the whole of the region, including Tamworth.

Bridget Phillipson: Tourism makes an important contribution to the north-east’s economy, but north-east tourism attractions and projects are missing out on European funding. Will the Minister intervene to support job creation and growth in the region?

Helen Grant: There are considerable efforts to ensure job creation and growth in the area. The north-east is a fabulous area for tourism. Our local growth fund, the regional growth fund, the coastal communities fund and the rural development programme, which effectively involves European money, are pockets of funding that could certainly benefit the hon. Lady’s constituency.

Nigel Evans: Does the Minister agree that food tourism is now vitally important to the British economy? Will she send her congratulations to Craig Bancroft and Nigel Haworth of Northcote hotel, who for 15 years have successfully run a food festival called Obsession, which runs for 15 days with five courses with matching wines of international and national repute? If I send her the date for next year, will she put it in her diary? I may be able to get Nigel Haworth to make her his traditional Lancashire hotpot.

Helen Grant: That sounds great. I can’t wait—I love Lancashire hotpot. Yes, please send me an invitation. Many congratulations on those food tourism efforts.

Children and the Arts

Fiona Mactaggart: What steps he plans to take to ensure that children learn about or experience the creative arts.

Edward Vaizey: It is wonderful to have a question from the hon. Lady. For one terrible moment I thought she might not be here, but I am so pleased to see that she has arrived in time to hear me answer that we believe strongly that children should have every opportunity to learn about and experience the arts. At the beginning of this year, we announced another £109 million for
	music and cultural education. That takes the amount we have invested in music and cultural education to £400 million in this Parliament.

Fiona Mactaggart: Perhaps the Minister would like to have a conversation with his friend the Mayor of London about the state of traffic in south London this morning.
	Why has the number of children who experience the creative arts, except for film, declined every year that the hon. Gentleman has been responsible for this field? Why has the number of children studying art, drama and dance—creative subjects—at GCSE fallen so radically while he has been in charge?

Edward Vaizey: At the very last Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions of this Parliament, every one of which I have attended, I think the hon. Lady makes a slightly snippy point, particularly as the Taking Part survey shows that participation by children has increased for those aged between five and 10 and stayed at the very high level of 99.4% for those aged 11 to 15. There has been an 8% increase in those taking arts GCSE subjects since 2010 and participation in music, dance, art and design continues.

Mr Speaker: Order. I always enjoy the mellifluous tones of the hon. Gentleman. I have known him 25 years and they never pall, but we do want to get through the business.

Simon Wright: The new Progress 8 measure for secondary schools will provide more space for the arts in school accountability measures. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that there is the greatest incentive for schools to provide high-quality arts education, including through prioritisation by Ofsted?

Edward Vaizey: I co-chair the cultural education group with the Minister for Schools. We are having a meeting next week. I was pleased to see that Ofsted has made it clear that under its new inspections beginning later this year, an inspection must take account of whether a school offers a broad, balanced and relevant curriculum. Music will be a clear element of that.

Chris Bryant: Does the Minister accept that whatever spin he may put on it, when the Education Secretary told pupils not to study arts subjects because it would hold them back for the rest of their lives, she and his Government were systematically undermining artistic education for all children in this country? Is he not ashamed that on his watch the number of children taking part in music in schools has fallen from 55% to 36%? Does he not realise that a strong artistic and cultural education should be the universal entitlement of every single child in this country, because it is good for them, good for the economy and good for this nation?

Edward Vaizey: This week we celebrated the 50th anniversary of Jennie Lee’s first White Paper on the arts, and I am pleased that 50 years later we continue to support the arts, particularly in education. The Education Secretary did not say what the hon. Gentleman claims that she said; she said that for too long people had thought that
	science had held back their careers. She has praised arts education and she is giving a very important speech on cultural education next week. The hon. Gentleman is invited.

Andrew Stephenson: Does the Minister agree that cultural education is vital for our children and that, under this Government, we have raised the status and standing of arts GCSEs and A-levels so that they are genuinely worthwhile qualifications?

Edward Vaizey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have seen an increase in the number of students taking arts GCSEs, for example.

Tourism

Mark Menzies: What steps he has taken to promote tourism and develop the tourism industry throughout England.

Helen Grant: We have invested a total of £10 million in VisitEngland’s Holidays at Home are GREAT campaign, with the fourth campaign launching this spring. VisitEngland is also promoting and developing domestic tourism through its Growing Tourism Locally campaign.

Mark Menzies: My constituency enjoys a vibrant tourist economy that includes Royal Lytham & St Annes golf club, Lytham music festival and Ribby Hall village, to name but a few. What steps is the Minister taking to promote further tourism investment growth in the north-west?

Helen Grant: The Government have recently announced £10 million of funding for tourism in the north of England, which is very good news for my hon. Friend’s constituency, the wider north-west and tourism across the north of England. We hope that the agreed project will commence this April.

Mr Speaker: I do not know why that question was not grouped with Questions 12 and 13—these people are sometimes a law unto themselves—but if the Members who tabled those questions wish to come in, they are welcome to do so.

Mark Pawsey: Today the civic buildings and street lamps across Rugby are festooned with dressing for the rugby world cup, which will be held later this year, celebrating Rugby’s status as the home of the game. During the tournament, visitors will be able to visit a fan zone and see where it all started back in 1823. Does the Minister agree that people coming to this, the third largest sporting event, provides a valuable economic opportunity not only to Rugby, but to venues across the UK?

Helen Grant: Yes, I absolutely agree. These major sporting events are absolutely fabulous for the economy and for tourism, and of course they inspire people to participate in sport.

Oliver Colvile: May I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for recently meeting a delegation from Plymouth to discuss Mayflower 400, which of course is about commemorating the founding of the American
	colonies and will hopefully boost our tourist economy? What support might the Department be able to give this really historic event down in Devon in 2020?

Helen Grant: It will be a marvellous event, and I know that my hon. Friend has been fully involved in the programme, which will be fabulous for tourism. I am pleased to announce today additional funding of £35,000 for the city’s Mayflower museum, which will help to ensure a strong legacy for the celebrations. [Interruption.] We hope to be able to offer further support for the programme in due course.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) is chuntering from a sedentary position, to no obvious benefit or purpose, but no doubt we will be enlightened later.

Mark Williams: What assessment has the Minister made of the much greater contribution tourism could make to the economy were VAT on tourism to be reduced, which is something that all but three countries in the EU have been able to deliver?

Helen Grant: VAT is a matter that is constantly raised with me, but it is one for the Chancellor. He keeps all taxes under review, and I am sure that he will keep this one under review too. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that I am holding a round-table meeting on VAT with the industry in the next two weeks.

Bob Russell: rose—

Mr Speaker: Let us hear the fellow—Sir Bob Russell.

Bob Russell: Mr Speaker, I was merely observing that the Mayflower commenced its journey to America from Harwich and merely stopped off at Plymouth en route.

Mr Speaker: I think that question was rhetorical, but if the Minister particularly wishes to respond she may.

Helen Grant: That was a very interesting observation, and I am very happy to support the campaign.

Sports Pitches (Redevelopment)

Duncan Hames: If he will take steps to ensure that mitigation conditions are enforced when sports pitches are redeveloped.

Helen Grant: It is vital that appropriate playing fields are preserved for local communities. We will always work to protect and improve their provision. Enforcement of mitigating conditions at a local level is a matter for the local authority.

Duncan Hames: The Minister is right; it is a matter for the local authority. In the case of Westinghouse sports ground in Chippenham, the problem has caused Sport England to send an impressively assertive solicitors letter to Wiltshire council suggesting grave concerns about its resolve to secure mitigation for the loss of sports facilities. Will the Minister give her support to
	Sport England in insisting that Wiltshire council does not allow a precious sports pitch to slip through its fingers?

Helen Grant: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I understand from Sport England that work is planned to begin replacing the cricket pavilion at Westinghouse sports ground, and that is very good news. Sport England has been in regular contact with the developer, the council and residents, and I know that the hon. Gentleman has too. It wants sporting facilities to be maintained at the site as per the section 106 agreement, and will continue to help and provide expertise. I support the stance that Sport England is taking.

Gerry Sutcliffe: It is important that sporting facilities are available to everybody, particularly people with disabilities. I know that the Minister is working very hard on providing those facilities for disability sport. She may be aware that the England cerebral palsy football team will not be able to play at the next Paralympics because cerebral palsy football has been dropped off the agenda for Paralympic sport. Is she as concerned about that as I am?

Helen Grant: Yes, I am very concerned. Although this is a decision for the International Paralympic Committee, I recently met the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association to discuss the issue, and disability sailing as well. We are a great footballing nation, and a great sailing nation too, and I understand the frustrations about this decision. I therefore intend to speak to the IPC president, Sir Philip Craven, in the next couple of weeks.

Creative Industries

Mary Macleod: What recent assessment he has made of the contribution of the creative industries in London to the UK economy.

Edward Vaizey: rose—

Mr Speaker: Ah, Mr Vaizey!

Edward Vaizey: Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that these final DCMS questions are turning into an absolute joy. I can see your heart lifting every time I reach the Dispatch Box, and now I have done so to tell you that the creative industries make a fantastic contribution to London’s economy, employing half a million people.

Mary Macleod: My constituency is home to the west London creative industries hub, comprising hundreds of TV, IT and other creative industry businesses. To be successful, these businesses need to be connected. My hon. Friend and colleagues have done great work in delivering superfast broadband especially in rural areas, but will he consider some of the creative companies in west London that are still waiting to be superfast?

Edward Vaizey: On Tuesday night I spoke to the Hounslow chamber of commerce at the headquarters of iBurbia in Chiswick. The managing director there rushed up to me to say that he had just got superfast broadband by using
	one of our super-connected voucher schemes. He also said to me, utterly unprompted, that he thought my hon. Friend was one of the hardest-working people he had ever met. He told the entire room, full of hundreds of business people, that fact.

Kerry McCarthy: Obviously London is an important creative hub in terms of its contribution to the UK economy, but other cities such as Bristol can make a real contribution too. What assessment has the Minister made of programmes like Plus Tate, in which the Tate is working with other galleries such as the Arnolfini in Bristol, that enable the London institutions to help places in other cities?

Edward Vaizey: Plus Tate is a fantastic programme that belies the statistics saying that London has more money spent on the arts than the rest of the country. The money that goes to the Tate helps to support 24 contemporary art museums around the country, and the scheme is very successful. It is worth bearing that in mind.

John Whittingdale: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern expressed by creative industries in London and elsewhere about the way in which the EU regulation covering temporary structures is being interpreted as that could lead to huge extra costs in the building of film sets and theatrical and musical stages? Is he aware that other European countries are not interpreting it in this way, and will he ensure that we are not gold-plating unnecessarily?

Edward Vaizey: Yes, I am well aware of this issue. The Secretary of State is also closely aware of it and discussing it keenly. I am sure that my hon. Friend understands where our sympathies lie.

Mobile Phone Coverage

Ian Lucas: If he will make an assessment of the effectiveness of mobile phone coverage in Wrexham.

Edward Vaizey: As you know, Mr Speaker, improving mobile coverage is a priority for the Government. Thanks to the Secretary of State’s negotiations with the mobile operators, we have reached a legally binding agreement with them. Under that agreement, not spots in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will fall from 5.4% to just 1.3%.

Ian Lucas: Mobile coverage in Wrexham is not super. After five years of this Government, businesses and individuals in Wrexham town centre complain constantly about this issue. I am surprised that the Secretary of State did not reply on this, because he heard about it in Wrexham recently. Why have this Government failed?

Edward Vaizey: It is certainly true that the Secretary of State met the brilliant local campaigner in Wrexham, Andrew Atkinson, and had long discussions with him about improving mobile coverage. If the hon. Gentleman wants to support Mr Atkinson’s campaign to improve mobile coverage, he is welcome to do so.

Roger Williams: I may be wrong, but I believe I glimpsed the Minister in my constituency—on a mini-digger and endangering a cabinet that was about to be upgraded. While he was there, did he get any information about the timeliness of the roll-out of broadband in Wales, given that the Government have contributed £57 million to the project?

Edward Vaizey: I was indeed in Brecon. Our rural broadband programme is so important that it is a case of all hands to the pump. I was happy to get on a mini-digger and help to get my hon. Friend’s constituency more superfast-connected.

Albert Owen: In my Ynys Môn constituency, 2G is poor, 3G is patchy and 4G is non-existent; yet my constituents pay exactly the same contract prices as people who have full coverage in cities. Does the Minister agree that there should be some sort of differential on contract prices for, or even a rebate from, companies that do not provide a full service?

Edward Vaizey: We have the fastest roll-out and the fastest take-up of 4G anywhere in the world. The contract between a customer and the mobile phone company is a matter for them, and it is a matter for consumer law, rather than for the telecoms roll-out.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, Mr Andrew Turner.

Sailing (Disabled People)

Andrew Turner: What assessment he has made of the benefits of sailing for disabled people; and if he will make a statement.

Helen Grant: The Government are committed to seeing everyone realise their sporting potential. Sport England is investing £800,000 in the Royal Yachting Association’s sailability programme, designed to make sailing accessible for disabled people. Thanks to that investment, more than 11,000 people with disabilities were able to enjoy sailing in 2013-14.

Andrew Turner: The great advantage of sailing over almost every other sport is that both disabled and non-disabled people can work together as equals. The loss of sailing from the Tokyo Paralympics would represent a giant step backwards. What more can the Minister do, working with Paralympic and sailing organisations both UK-based and elsewhere in the world, to reinstate sailing as a sport in the 2020 Paralympics.

Helen Grant: Although that is a decision for the International Paralympic Committee, I recently met the chief executive of the British Paralympic Association to discuss this very issue. On several occasions, I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who is also very concerned. Britain is a great sailing nation, and I completely understand the frustration of our Paralympic sailors. I therefore intend to speak to the IPC president Sir Philip Craven in the very near future.

Topical Questions

Ian Lucas: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Sajid Javid: In the past month, British talent has enjoyed incredible success at the Grammys, the Baftas, the Brits and the Oscars. That is just another demonstration of the way in which this country’s creative industries lead the world. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating all our award-winning actors, film makers and musicians, no matter what school they went to.

Ian Lucas: BBC news coverage in north-east Wales is poor. Does the Secretary of State agree with the proposal in today’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee report that the BBC should work closely with local news organisations to improve regional news coverage?

Sajid Javid: I warmly welcome the report, which I shall study very closely. It is an important contribution to the future of the BBC, and all its suggestions, including the one the hon. Gentleman mentions, will be taken account of when the charter review process starts.

Christopher Pincher: Two weeks ago, Tamworth won growth funding to regenerate its town centre and build an enterprise and creative quarter. Will my hon. Friend say what more the Government can do to help our creative industries and allow Tamworth to take full advantage of this wonderful opportunity?

Edward Vaizey: We will work incredibly hard with my hon. Friend as the excellent local MP for Tamworth to support that creative cluster. We will also work with the local enterprise partnership and Creative England, which supports the creative industries outside London.

Clive Efford: It has not been a good week for the Secretary of State, but it has been a good week for entertainment and sports fans. If the Government had listened to us, thousands of fans buying tickets for the rugby world cup, the Ashes and many other events would have been saved from having to pay several times the face value for tickets that were hoovered up by organised gangs of touts. Everyone accepted our argument that action was needed on secondary ticketing, except for the Secretary of State, who should have been representing those fans. Will he ensure that the measures in the Consumer Rights Bill will be implemented without delay? While he is at it, will he come to the Dispatch Box and apologise to the fans he has so badly let down?

Sajid Javid: My view on this issue has not changed. Consumers must always be put first. That means that they should be allowed to sell tickets that they no longer need, and that fans who were not able to get them the first time should be able to buy them. Those principles have not changed. However, we were not prepared to jeopardise the Bill’s safe passage through the House and accepted the amendment. The important thing is to see how it works in practice. The amendment includes a statutory review, which I hope will look at all the issues, and we will see how it actually works.

Adam Afriyie: I do not know if it is the same for you, Mr Speaker, and other hon. Members, but quite often late at night or in the early hours, my spouse looks at me quite suspiciously when she notices that I have been online.

Edward Vaizey: Where is this going?

Adam Afriyie: Absolutely. I am delighted that in Old Windsor and across the constituency, 2,000 more people are now connected to superfast broadband. Will Ministers continue the roll-out and, in particular, focus on satellite technology, which can bring a better experience, even when we are doing constituency correspondence?

Sajid Javid: First, I encourage my hon. Friend’s spouse to ensure that the family filters are turned on in the Afriyie household. His point about the greater use of satellite technology throughout the UK is well made. That is something that we are actively looking at.

Kerry McCarthy: The Music Venue Trust will launch its report on the challenges faced by small and medium venues at an event that I am hosting in Parliament on 9 March. What value does the Secretary of State place on the importance of the live music circuit to the UK’s world-dominating music industry? If he is not able to drop in on 9 March, may I send him a copy of the report, so that he can hear the concerns about the challenges facing venues?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will see whether I or the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy can drop in on 9 March. She has campaigned actively on behalf of venues in her constituency, some of which I know well. I went to The Fleece during my youth in Bristol. She is a great champion for such venues and I hope that we can work together on these issues.

Caroline Dinenage: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner), does the Minister agree that the decision of the International Paralympic Committee to exclude sailing from the Tokyo games in 2020 is not only an enormous setback for that important British sport, but will rob us of the next generation of inspiring sailing sportsmen, such as Fareham’s Geoff Holt?

Helen Grant: That is a concern and I will speak to Sir Philip Craven about the matter.

Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the Minister for his support in my Adjournment debate for Premier Christian Radio staying on Digital One. His predecessor, speaking about digital radio to the Broadcasting Bill Committee in 1996, said that
	“no more than two of the stations on the multiplex should be aimed at predominantly the same…audience”.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 14 May 1996.]
	What is the current policy on station diversity on Digital One and, in future, on Digital Two?

Edward Vaizey: In what may be my last answer in Culture, Media and Sport questions, having attended every single session since the beginning of this Parliament, may I say that I was very happy to support the right hon. Gentleman’s campaign to keep Premier Christian Radio on the multiplex? I will certainly check after questions what the current policy is on diversity on the multiplex, as that might add another string to his very important argument, if that is not too much of a mixed metaphor to end on.

Philip Davies: The mixed ability rugby world cup will take place for the first time ever in my constituency later this year. I know that the Minister has met the event organisers, for which I am grateful, and I also thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Mr Sutcliffe) for his strong support for the event. Will the Minister set out what support the Government can provide to attract sponsorship for the event, to make it the great success that it deserves to be?

Helen Grant: I have met the gentlemen from my hon. Friend’s constituency, and they gave me a fabulous black and yellow rugby shirt, which I put on. They are called the Bumbles, and they are fabulous. I will be happy to have a meeting or discussion with my hon. Friend about funding that event.

Fiona Mactaggart: Earlier, the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy dodged his way around the figures that I cited from the Warwick report about the drastic decline in children’s experience and learning in creative subjects. Perhaps he will respond more positively to another of its recommendations, which is that every publicly funded organisation that deals with cataloguing and archives on the net should be encouraged to use the same mechanisms for the cataloguing of GLAM—galleries, libraries, museums and archives—so that the archives can be more easily accessed and searched by everyone.

Edward Vaizey: I was obviously premature in my last answer, Mr Speaker.
	I have a lot of sympathy with that recommendation. Putting museum and archive content online and making it easily accessible to both teachers for their lesson plans and students for their learning is an important issue. I will have a number of meetings in the coming weeks to discuss some ideas about it.

Iain Stewart: Women have traditionally been under-represented in the classical music world. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore congratulate Milton Keynes city orchestra on organising a special concert under the baton of Sian Edwards on international women’s day to recognise the huge talent of women in classical music today?

Sajid Javid: I join my hon. Friend in warmly commending the Milton Keynes city orchestra. I have three young daughters who all learn instruments, and I know that they take huge inspiration from seeing more and more women in orchestras and in music, which I warmly encourage.

Tom Greatrex: Although it is not a universally rewarding experience being an away fan following Fulham, it is certainly the case that travelling supporters bring
	vibrancy, atmosphere and colour to football fixtures. Given the largesse that now exists in the Premier League, does the Minister agree that it would be a good measure for clubs to take to ensure that there is a cap on the price of standard away tickets, so that some of the benefit of the additional TV revenue comes to the fans who help make the atmosphere of the games?

Helen Grant: I believe that fans are the lifeblood of the game—where would we be without them? They always have the best interests of their club at heart, and clubs should do everything they possibly can to make tickets as affordable as possible.

Tim Loughton: I fear that my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy was being even more premature than he thought. A couple of weeks ago, he extolled the virtues of the fantastic portable antiquities scheme, which has now brought in more than 1 million artefacts. Is he aware that there has been a 5% cut to the scheme this year, and that several finds liaison officer posts are under threat? We really need to find a more sustainable, long-term solution for funding that excellent scheme.

Edward Vaizey: I am having more comebacks than Frank Sinatra.
	I am a huge supporter of the portable antiquities scheme, and in fact we ring-fenced its funding when we came into government. I will do all that I can to support that very effective scheme.

Graham Allen: Will the Secretary of State welcome tomorrow’s meeting in Nottingham between “Get Creative”, from the BBC, and “What Next?”, which is organised locally? Will he also underline the strong commitment that he gave me at the last Culture, Media and Sport questions that he considers arts, culture and heritage just as important for the outer cities as for the often oversubscribed inner cities?

Sajid Javid: I wholeheartedly agree. The hon. Gentleman has teamed up with two excellent organisations, and I wish him well.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Homophobic Bullying

Emma Lewell-Buck: What steps she is taking to tackle homophobic bullying.

Jo Swinson: Homophobic bullying is absolutely unacceptable, and we are committed to eliminating it. That is why we have announced £2 million of grant funding to support schools to address the issue more effectively. That complements the £4 million that the Department currently provides to charitable organisations to tackle all forms of bullying.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Is the Minister aware that Mr Gay World, Stuart Hatton, lives in my constituency? He recently launched a fantastic anti-bullying campaign called “So What?”. His message is simple: some of us are straight, some of us are gay, so what? With Stonewall reporting that nearly a quarter of lesbian, gay or bisexual pupils miss school because of homophobic bullying, his message is sorely needed. Labour’s shadow Ministers are backing Stuart’s campaign. Will the Minister?

Jo Swinson: I very much welcome the hon. Lady setting out her constituent’s campaign, and I will be happy to look at it as it sounds excellent. We all agree that tackling homophobic bullying must be a real priority for the reasons that she outlined in her question, and because of the impact that it has on LGBT young people, and indeed other young people, as this issue also affects those who are not LGBT.

Mark Menzies: Homophobic bullying in schools is completely unacceptable. Will the Minister ensure that Ofsted is getting the message through to head teachers and schools that they must do everything in their power to eradicate that wicked thing?

Jo Swinson: The short answer is yes, and the national professional qualification for headship contains information on how to tackle bullying, including homophobic bullying.

Unemployment

Graeme Morrice: What estimate she has made of the number of women who have been unemployed for over one year.

Heidi Alexander: What estimate she has made of the number of women who have been unemployed for over one year.

Mark Harper: Female long-term unemployment has fallen by more than 90,000 on the year—the largest annual fall on record––to 237,000, demonstrating the success of the Government’s long-term economic plan.

Graeme Morrice: Under this Government there are more young women who have been out of work for over a year than there were four years ago. Does the Minister agree that that is a terrible indictment of the Government’s so-called long-term economic plan?

Mark Harper: I am pleased the hon. Gentleman recognises that we have a long-term economic plan that is also successful—two things that the Labour party does not have. The previous Government removed people who were about to become long-term unemployed from the claimant count by putting them on training programmes. We have stopped that charade and now have an honest measure. We have a record number of women in work, a record female employment rate, a record number of older women in work, a record older female employment rate, and a female participation rate that is close to the highest on record—a record of which I am very proud.

Heidi Alexander: In the last year I have dealt with a number of cases concerning older women who have previously been in work but are now struggling to
	secure a new position having found themselves unemployed. They often feel that discrimination plays a part in the refusals they have been given, but they simply do not have the means to challenge the companies and organisations involved, so that discrimination is left unchallenged. What should women who find themselves in that situation do?

Mark Harper: First, as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), a record number of older women are in work and we have a record employment rate for older females—that is obviously good news. For those in the position that the hon. Lady sets out, we have looked at programmes to help older workers return to work. New pilots were announced in the autumn statement last year to look at barriers to work, and at our sector-based work academies and work experience programmes that are particularly tailored to the needs of older workers.

Mary Macleod: Unemployment is down by 37% in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that UK women are getting into work faster than in any other country in the G7, which shows that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working in my constituency?

Mark Harper: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and I will be visiting her constituency tomorrow to speak to local businesses—

Fiona Mactaggart: What a surprise.

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady says, “What a surprise”, but my hon. Friend is holding an event to talk about getting more disabled people back into work with a number of excellent local employers. The hon. Lady should congratulate her on that, rather than being churlish about it.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I cannot do better than report what the OECD said, which was that we had a long-term economic plan and effective economic policies, and that the performance of the labour market in the United Kingdom was “remarkable”.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Progress is very slow and we must speed up matters. We can be guided in that by a legendary parliamentarian, Mr Philip Davies.

Philip Davies: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, aside from the strong record he has outlined, about 80% of the growth in female employment in the past four years has come in managerial, professional and technical professions?

Mark Harper: I can absolutely confirm that.

Gloria De Piero: The number of young women claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than one year is up by 30%. Bankers have done very well under this Government, so why does the Minister not use a tax on bank bonuses to pay for a guaranteed job for young women?

Mark Harper: It is fascinating. Only a few weeks ago, in the debate on Labour’s job guarantee, the Secretary of State pointed out that Labour had spent the bank bonus tax 11 times with 11 different policies. If spending it for a 12th time is the best the hon. Lady can do, she needs to go back to the drawing board.

Equal Pay

David Hanson: What steps she is taking to deliver equal pay for men and women.

Jo Swinson: The gender pay gap has fallen to its lowest level ever and has been entirely eliminated among full-time workers under the age of 40, but our goal must be to eliminate it entirely. We are tackling systemic pay inequalities through a range of measures: the Your Life initiative to get more girls into science, technology, engineering and maths; improved child care; extending flexible working; and introducing shared parental leave.

David Hanson: Forty four years after Labour’s Equal Pay Act 1970, sadly women earn on average 81p for every £1 that men earn. Tomorrow, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has a Bill providing for transparency in larger companies. Will the Government support it?

Jo Swinson: The Government’s position is not to support that particular Bill, but we are encouraging much more transparency through the Think, Act, Report initiative, to which more than 270 employers, covering 2.5 million employees, have signed up. Nearly half of them have done an equal pay audit in the last year and two thirds are publishing more information on gender equality. I agree that this is a hugely important issue on which we need to make more progress, and we are committed to doing so.

Philip Hollobone: Which employment sector has the greatest gender pay gap, which has the least and what is the Minister doing to get representatives of the one to talk to the other?

Jo Swinson: That is a fantastic question, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with the specific statistics for different sectors. Sectoral differences are a significant part of the gender pay gap. We know that occupational segregation—the congregation of women in much lower paying sectors—is a significant driver of about one third of the pay gap, which is why the initiatives to get more girls studying STEM subjects are so important.

Chris Bryant: Will the Minister cheer on Patricia Arquette’s Oscar acceptance speech, in which she called for equal pay in the arts, particularly in the film industry?

Jo Swinson: indicated assent.

Nicky Morgan: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: If so—I see that both Ministers are nodding—what will Ministers do to ensure pay equality in the British film industry?

Jo Swinson: I wholeheartedly endorse the speech by Patricia Arquette—I have already welcomed it on Twitter because I think it needed to be brought to a wider audience. In the UK arts industry, as in all industries, it is important that there be greater transparency and support for women in the workplace in terms of promotion and seniority. That is what we will continue to promote.

Oliver Colvile: I am sure that like me my hon. Friend is pleased that the Work programme is helping the long-term unemployed, both men and women, back into work. Will she confirm that the number of long-term unemployed people has fallen to its lowest in five years and that the claimant count in my constituency has fallen by 42%?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has got mixed up: the previous question was about unemployment, but this one is about equal pay, so I shall take his question as rhetorical. We are grateful to him for getting his observations on the record.

Domestic Violence

Andrew McDonald: What assessment she has made of the effects on employed women who are victims of domestic violence of means-testing when they attempt to access a refuge.

Nicky Morgan: Employed people entering refuge accommodation can claim help with their housing costs through housing benefit, which is both an in-work and out-of-work benefit. When paid to claimants who are in work, it is calculated on the basis of their earnings. The Government have provided £6.5 billion in housing-related support over this spending review period so that when someone enters a refuge the support element of the provision will not be means-tested.

Andrew McDonald: Does the Minister agree that the safety of women suffering domestic violence ought to be prioritised over their ability to access funds at a time of personal crisis? If so, will she support my call for means testing to include an assessment of the economic impact of abusive and controlling relationships?

Nicky Morgan: I know that the hon. Gentleman has done a lot of work with the charity My Sister’s Place, based in his constituency, and I agree that at a time of personal crisis the first thing refuges do—this will be the case for most of the refuges I have spoken to—is offer security, not ask how somebody will pay. He will have seen the ministerial letter to My Sister’s Place making it clear that where a victim of domestic violence takes up temporary accommodation, while also making arrangements to return to their home, housing benefit for both properties can be payable. Discretionary housing payment is also available.

Adam Afriyie: The Berkshire women’s refuge serves my constituency incredibly well. We all abhor domestic violence, particularly towards women,
	so does my right hon. Friend, like me, welcome the victim surcharge, which ensures that those who commit these acts contribute to making reparations?

Nicky Morgan: I absolutely welcome the victim surcharge, which results in important payments being made. I am sure that he will also want to welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government just before Christmas of an extra £10 million to secure refuge accommodation for the next two years.

Childcare Business Grants Scheme

Bob Blackman: What estimate she has made of the potential benefit to working families of the extension of the childcare business grants scheme announced in the autumn statement 2014.

Nicky Morgan: Working families benefit from a thriving child care sector, with the scheme supporting up to 3,000 new child care businesses in the next financial year. I am pleased to inform the House that, from this April, we are doubling the value of the grants available to childminders and nurseries. We will also extend the scheme to existing child care businesses that have been trading for less than a year.

Bob Blackman: In my constituency, there is a huge demand from mothers with young children for safe and secure childminders from a diverse background. What further measures is my right hon. Friend able to take to ensure that those young mothers can return to work knowing that their children are safe and secure?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that childminders are a crucial part of the child care sector. We want to see more of them, which is why we have enabled the establishment of childminder agencies. To date, the childcare business grant scheme has benefited more than 4,000 childminders, including almost 30 in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The scheme has also benefited seven nurseries in Harrow, East—MiniSteps, for example.

Disabled People (Access to Work)

Tom Greatrex: What assessment she has made of the effects of Government policies on disabled people’s access to work.

Mark Harper: Over 3 million working-age disabled people are now in employment. There are 141,000 more disabled people in work than a year ago, and the employment rate has risen, demonstrating that disabled people are benefiting from the Government’s long-term economic plan.

Tom Greatrex: In September last year, the Minister published statistics showing that only 206,000 of 529,400 personal independence payment applications had been cleared. When he published those statistics, he said:
	“By the end of the year we expect that no-one will be waiting for an assessment for longer than 16 weeks.”
	Yet when the updated figures were published in January, they did not include the number of those who had waited longer than 16 weeks. Will the Minister now ensure that those figures are published so we can see whether the anecdotal evidence we get from our constituents is correct?

Mark Harper: I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I published statistics just ahead of my appearance at the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Last year, when I got this job, the average wait for a claimant was unacceptably high, at around 30 weeks. After sustained effort from my Department and our assessment providers, we had more than halved that by the end of the year. I am very pleased, and we will continue that focus.

Sharon Hodgson: Recent figures have shown that only 7% of disabled people on employment and support allowance gained sustained employment through the Government’s Work programme, which is worse than if there were no programme at all. In Sir Bert Massie’s report on the link between disability and poverty, he highly recommends replacing this clearly failing programme with one of locally controlled specialist support for disabled people. A Labour Government would commit to do this, so can the Minister tell us his Government’s position on this issue? If they do not believe that change is necessary, how can they justify those figures?

Mark Harper: I do not need to justify those figures. If the hon. Lady had used more up-to-date figures, she would know that performance has significantly improved and that more people are being helped into work through the Work programme, work choice and access to work. Yes, more disabled people are being helped than before. As I said in response to an earlier question, 141,000 more disabled people are in work now than last year. I think that is a record to be proud of. There is more to do, but good progress is being made.

Discrimination Claims

Kate Green: What change there has been in the number of people bringing discrimination claims since the introduction of tribunal fees.

Nicky Morgan: Although the number of people bringing discrimination claims to the employment tribunals is not collected centrally, the number of complaints of discrimination from ET claims is collected. From July to September 2014, there were 5,475 complaints of discrimination on the grounds of age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, or sexual orientation, or of having suffered a detriment or unfair dismissal due to pregnancy, or complaints relating to equal pay. This compares to just over 18,000 in the quarter from April to June 2013, a fall of 71%.

Kate Green: There has been a particularly shocking fall of more than 90% in the number of sex discrimination cases, including those involving pregnancy-related discrimination. Many women on low incomes cannot apply for fee remission in order to go to an employment tribunal, not because of their own incomes, but because of their partners’ incomes or savings. Does the Minister think that that system is giving those women fair access
	to justice? Furthermore, is it not penalising good businesses that do not try to get away with poor, discriminatory practices, unlike others which know that there will be no danger of a challenge if they do so?

Nicky Morgan: Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace is unacceptable and unlawful, and the Government have recognised the need to tackle it. In
	November 2013, we announced an extensive programme of research on perceived pregnancy and maternity discrimination in Great Britain. We have made a commitment to conduct a review of the introduction of the fees, and we will do so, but we think that this is a matter for the next Administration and the next Parliament.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

William Hague: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 2 March—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate entitled “Devolution in England: The Case for Local Government”, followed by a debate on “Towards the next Defence and Security Review: Part Two—NATO”. Further details will be given in the Official Report.
	[The details are as follows: Devolution in England: The Case for Local Government, 1st Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, HC 503, and the Government response; Towards the next Defence and Security Review Part Two: NATO, 3rd Report from the Defence Committee, HC 358, and the Government response, HC 755.]
	Tuesday 3 March—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). There will be a debate on support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system, followed by a debate on children’s and adolescents’ mental health and child and adolescent mental health services. Further details will be given in the Official Report. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	[The details are as follows: Support for housing costs in the reformed welfare system, 4th Report from the Work and Pensions Committee, HC 720 of Session 2013-14; Children’s and adolescents’ mental health and CAMHS, 3rd Report from the Health Committee, HC 342, and the Government response.]
	Wednesday 4 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipations and Adjustments) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill, followed by Opposition day (unallotted half-day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.
	Thursday 5 March—There will be a general debate on international women’s day, followed by a general debate on Welsh affairs. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 6 March—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 9 March will include:
	Monday 9 March—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Consumer Rights Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to “Commission Work Programme 2015”, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Tuesday 10 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Deregulation Bill, followed by a motion to approve statutory instruments relating to counter-terrorism, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to subsidiarity and proportionality and the Commission’s relations with national Parliaments.
	Wednesday 11 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist party—subject to be announced—followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.
	Thursday 12 March—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 13 March—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on 5 March will be a general debate on planning and the national planning policy framework.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House.
	Monday and Tuesday are estimates days, and we shall have a chance to scrutinise Government waste, but the form of the debates will allow us only to scratch the surface of those overspends. Does the Leader of the House agree that rather than three days being allocated for debate, the estimates process needs to be made much more rigorous? Will he support our plans for a yearly session of budget questions to each Department, so that Secretaries of State can be held to account directly for their spending decisions?
	Yesterday my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) described what seemed to be a worrying case of the blatant misuse of public resources for party-political purposes. After she had passed an e-mail from a concerned constituent to the Prime Minister, her constituent received a party-political reply from No. 10 featuring propaganda about the Conservative Party manifesto. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether party-political letters are being prepared at public expense and civil service neutrality is being undermined, or whether correspondence intended for the Prime Minister is being passed directly to the Conservative party? Will he tell us why this seems to be a developing theme with this Government, with millions of letters to small businesses on No. 10 headed paper filled with Tory propaganda, Government announcements conveniently located in marginal seats, the Prime Minister and Chancellor travelling the country on public money on their “long-term economic scam tour” and the unexplained 22% rise in the Government’s external communications bill just as the election is approaching? Will the Leader of the House also arrange for an urgent statement from the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General on these disturbing developments?
	Today, we have had the last set of quarterly migration figures before the election and it is clear that the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands is now in tatters. Instead of net migration’s being reduced, it is now higher than it was at the start of this Parliament and illegal immigration and exploitation are getting worse. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the Home Secretary on the huge failure in her Department?
	Figures released this week show that the number of people on zero-hours contracts has soared, but in this place we have had the sorry sight of the Conservative party defending the right of its MPs to earn millions of pounds on the side. Our motion yesterday was a sensible solution to the widening gap between the rules we have in this place and the standards the public expect of us. In a democracy, when we are out of step with public
	opinion we must change. The Government voted against banning paid directorships and consultancies, so I want to ask the Leader of the House whether his party is ready to contemplate any form of change.
	I have been reading an interview this morning with the Prime Minister in woman&home magazine. In it, he praised his wife and said that behind every great man there is a great woman. Surely he meant that behind every great man there is a very surprised woman.
	I am getting a bit worried, Mr Speaker. During questions yesterday, the Prime Minister boasted of how successfully he combines his job as Prime Minister with being the Member of Parliament for West Oxfordshire. That must be easy, because the constituency of West Oxfordshire does not even exist. Last week, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) knocked on the door of a local resident claiming that he was their MP, but was greeted by the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), who pointed out that he was in fact canvassing in the wrong constituency. I do not know about second jobs, but perhaps they should pay a bit more attention to their first ones. It is of course possible that they both just had a mind blank, like the leader of the Green party, who was involved in an eco-friendly car crash at the LBC studios on Tuesday. I gather that following her interview the Green party has joined the Conservative party in campaigning to be excluded from the leaders’ debates.
	Although some Government members do not seem to know quite where their constituencies are, the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) appears to have left his for another planet entirely. He has been formulating the new Conservative health policy and not content with wasting £3 billion on a top-down reorganisation of the NHS, he told a journal this week that the way to take the huge pressure off doctors is astrology. He claimed that it is a useful diagnostic tool, enabling us to see strengths and weaknesses via the birth chart. It is unclear whether he thinks that the Chancellor would have met his deficit reduction targets if only he had not broken that mirror.
	One person losing his constituency by choice is the Leader of the House. Asked at the weekend why he was leaving Parliament, he replied, “I’ve been Foreign Secretary and I’m determined not to be Prime Minister.” If I may say so, that goes some way to explaining his time as Leader of the Opposition.

William Hague: As ever, I am grateful for the questions from the hon. Lady. It shows what a broad party we are that we welcome views from all parts of the galaxy, as she has just demonstrated. On the question of what is behind every great man, I have always thought that behind every great man is an astonished mother-in-law, so that is a further refinement of that phrase. I can assure her that the Prime Minister knows where his constituency is and it is of course in west Oxfordshire even though that might not be its name. It would be wise, of course, for all candidates from all parties to know the boundaries of their constituencies for the general election.
	On the so-called car crash interview of the leader of the Green party, I think she has been taking lessons from the shadow Chancellor, who has given a series of
	disastrous interviews in which he has managed to fall out with his own window cleaner, quite apart from anything else. I have previously put the hon. Lady forward for her party leadership, but I really think she ought to consider being the shadow Chancellor in the coming general election campaign, because a shadow Cabinet member has said that if the shadow Chancellor
	“carries on behaving like this he is not unassailable…He has complete contempt for colleagues. He’s not a team player.”
	The hon. Lady is a team player and she could replace him. I think she would do a much better job than he has done. Indeed, Labour might not then need to bring back Lord Prescott to the front line of the campaign, which in any election campaign is a sure sign of desperation.

Chris Bryant: 1997, 2001 and 2005.

William Hague: I have enormous respect for Lord Prescott, but having to go back 10 years is a sign of desperation for Labour.
	On a more serious question, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) asked about Government waste. I remind her that this Government have saved, thanks to the Cabinet Office Ministers, more than £10 billion a year just by making elementary things in government more efficient. They have done that year on year by making sure that contracts are not excessive and that Government Departments buy services together. This Government have rooted out waste in government.
	The hon. Lady asked about the estimates days, the subjects for which are, of course, chosen by the Liaison Committee, so there is a well-established procedure. The hon. Lady has reforms in mind, but as things stand it is the role of Select Committees and questions in this House to hold Ministers to account. Although I am not closing off any sort of reform, that will be a question for the new Parliament, in which, as the hon. Lady has noted, I will conveniently not be present.
	The Prime Minister dealt with the question of correspondence yesterday. The rules are exactly the same as they were under the previous Government and they are observed.
	I am pleased that the long-term economic plan has entered the hon. Lady’s vocabulary, as well as that of the rest of the House and the country. I know she tried to alter one of those words, but it shows that that phrase has entered the economic vocabulary not just of the nation, but of the world. The head of the OECD stated this week:
	“My main message to you today is well done. Well done so far, Chancellor. But finish the job. Britain has a long-term economic plan, but it needs to stick with it.”
	The Chancellor is backed by economic commentators across the world, unlike the shadow Chancellor, who has fallen out with his own window cleaner. That is the actual choice before the country in the coming election.
	The hon. Lady asked about yesterday’s debate. One of the points I made during it is that there have been many improvements to transparency and accountability in this Parliament and there will be scope for further improvements, but neither I nor the House agree with the hon. Lady’s proposals. She said that millions were being earned. I recall that one of the few Members recording more than £1 million in outside earnings in this Parliament was the brother of the Leader of the
	Opposition before he left the House. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not put forward his proposals for reform until his brother had left the House of Commons. Perhaps he is in favour of family businesses, after all—you never know—or perhaps we have found the limits of fratricide: it’s all right to stab your brother in the back politically, but not to cut off his earnings as well. How extremely thoughtful of the Leader of the Opposition.

Cheryl Gillan: Earlier this week, during proceedings on the Serious Crime Bill, I highlighted the need for effective mandatory reporting of suspected sexual abuse in regulated settings, to afford better protection to our children and vulnerable people. Today, we shall hear in more detail about the repulsive activities of Jimmy Savile at our local hospital in Buckinghamshire, which will further reinforce the urgent need for reform. Will the Leader of the House give serious consideration to giving more time for a full debate on mandatory reporting, so that we might perhaps achieve cross-party consensus that could lead to action before the general election, rather than waiting until later in the year?

William Hague: As my right hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State for Health will make a statement on this matter shortly, and there will be opportunities for her and other Members to ask him questions. This is an important issue, and she, as a local Member of Parliament, will take a close interest in it. I think it would be best for the House to wait to hear what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to say before we consider what further debates on mandatory reporting might be necessary.

Barry Gardiner: Later this year, the world will turn its attention to the conference of the parties in Paris in December and, before that, to the conference on sustainable development goals in September. In July, the conference on the financing of development, which is perhaps more important, will take place in Addis. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is important that we have a major debate on that conference in this Chamber in Government time, and that the Treasury should be represented at such a debate to explain to the House precisely what it will be doing to ensure the success of the sustainable development goals and of the United Nations framework convention on climate change in December?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of that whole sequence of conferences later this year. I remember agreeing, as Foreign Secretary, to give assistance and advice to France on the hosting of the Paris meeting, because we in this country have so much expertise on these issues. This is a matter for the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for International Development, so it would primarily be for them to take part in any such debates. The Treasury’s role is to help to supply the money, as is so often the case. I certainly hope that there will be debates on the matter, but I anticipate that they will now have to take place in the next Parliament. The Backbench Business Committee has a few remaining days in this Parliament, as I have announced, but it would be a matter for the Committee to decide whether we had a general debate on these or other issues.

George Young: My question will come as no surprise to my right hon. Friend, as I have asked it several times before. In the diminishing number of days between now and Dissolution, is it still his ambition to hold a debate and a vote on the options in his White Paper “The Implications of Devolution for England”?

William Hague: My right hon. Friend’s question comes as no surprise—he has indeed asked it several times. The answer is that my ambition remains the same, but I have not achieved it yet. I am conscious of that, but such a debate and vote would of course require a measure of agreement among the parties in the House, including in the coalition, on how to phrase and frame the question. But it is not too late to have such a debate.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On Friday evening in North Antrim, we will be celebrating the life and times of Private Quigg, who in 1916 was awarded the Victoria Cross for conspicuous valour at the Somme. Yesterday, we read the wonderful news about Josh Leakey, who has just received the most recent Victoria Cross. Does the Leader of the House plan to do anything here formally to celebrate the life of this modern-day hero, and other heroes who have been awarded the VC, to enable Parliament to pay its respects to those wonderful people?

William Hague: That is a good point. The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention to an individual of whom the whole nation will be extremely proud—the only living recipient of the Victoria Cross in Afghanistan. Everyone who saw pictures of the ceremony on their television screens this morning will be intensely proud of him. We can give consideration as to how the House should recognise people who receive those and other medals for valour and gallantry. Much has been done in this country to recognise them. The brilliant new extension of the Imperial War Museum celebrates the recipients of the Victoria Cross throughout history, for example, and I recommend that everyone should go and see that. Perhaps we can give further consideration to how we can meet the hon. Gentleman’s request.

Tessa Munt: Will the Leader of the House speak to his colleagues in government to consider how small, resource-stretched charities such as the amazing Burnham Area Rescue Boat, which is so busy all year round delivering life-saving services and famously was on television every day during the Somerset floods last year, are informed about Government schemes such as the inshore and inland lifeboat grant scheme? Such schemes would help small charities such as BARB to access the funds they need so badly.

William Hague: I very much congratulate the local charities that my hon. Friend is talking about on the work done during the floods, and the Government are always open to further suggestions to improve information to them. There are many sources of information for charities; Grantmakers and governmentfunding.org.uk are appropriate examples of where charities can find the necessary information. I know that if my hon. Friend has suggestions as to how that can be improved my colleagues will be grateful for them.

Kevin Barron: The Leader of the House will know that many, many months have passed since we agreed the principle of standardised packaging of tobacco. I understand that we are waiting for the detail of the regulation to come through. Can he tell us how that will happen, whether it will be dealt with on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and when it will happen?

William Hague: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that yet; otherwise I would, of course, have announced it in the business statement. Details will become clear as the days go by. I have made it clear before that regulations could be laid but that they could not be made until after a date in early March—I believe in the first week of March. We have not got to the point when those regulations can be made, and we will announce how we are to do it in due course.

David Amess: Westcliff high school for boys, Westcliff high school for girls, Southend high school for boys and Southend high school for girls are four superb local grammar schools. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the funding of grammar schools, because at the moment they are perversely discriminated against in funding terms on the grounds of their very success?

William Hague: As my hon. Friend knows, we support the expansion of all good schools, including good grammar schools. I know that the schools he mentions are superb grammar schools in his constituency. Grammar schools, with their combination of high standards and ambition on behalf of the pupils, have a very important role to play in this country, so I certainly would not rule out any debate. Such a debate would have to be pursued through the normal channels, but it would allow him to bring to the House’s attention successful schools such as the Westcliff high schools and Southend high schools in his area.

Paul Flynn: On the day when the whole House celebrates with pride and congratulates our servicemen on their valour in Afghanistan, would it not be appropriate to consider early-day motion 813?
	[That this House records its sorrow at the deaths of 453 British soldiers in Afghanistan and notes the post-conflict judgements by Brigadier Ed Butler that the UK was under-prepared and under-resourced, by General Sir Peter Wall that the calculus was wrong, by Major General Andrew Mackay that the war was a series of shifting plans, unobtainable objectives, propaganda and spin, by former ambassador Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles that the UK operation was a massive act of collective self-deception by military and politicians unable to admit how badly it was going, and by General Lord Dannatt that the UK knew it was heading for two considerable size operations and really only had the organisation and manpower for one; and calls for an early inquiry into the conduct of the war in order to avoid future blunders.]
	Early-day motion 813 lists the comments since the war of the generals who took part. They universally say that it was futile and an act of self-delusion in which lives were wasted. Is it not right that we consider what happened in that war and have a full inquiry as early as possible, in order to avoid other hubristic politicians sending young men to die in vain?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman often pursues this issue and we have discussed it before. These are important issues; it is always important to learn the lessons from any military conflict. I do not agree with his assessment, having been to Afghanistan many times. I have to reflect on the fact that international terrorist bases were operating in Afghanistan before the western military action which are not there today. Our national security has been improved as a result, and the lives of millions of people in Afghanistan have been improved by the action we took. We will disagree on that assessment, but no doubt it can continue to be debated over the years ahead.

Rehman Chishti: My 13-year-old constituent Lucie Low is suffering from a rare, complex illness and is currently in Medway hospital in sheer agony. The hospital is working with Great Ormond Street hospital and King’s College hospital to help find a diagnosis and support her pain relief. Will the Leader of the House allow for an urgent statement on supporting children who are suffering from rare health conditions? I met Lucie yesterday in hospital and saw the suffering she is in. Please, may I ask everyone to do everything they can to help her and her family at this difficult time?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is right to stand up for the needs of his constituent and bring the attention of the House to such a case. The Government want to see all children with complex needs receive the very best care and support. I am pleased to say that since 2010 the number of doctors working in paediatrics has risen by 11%, but that does not mean that everything is perfect. I will draw the attention of my colleagues at the Department of Health to what he has said about this particular case, so that they can respond to him directly.

Joan Walley: Given that it was not possible for me to raise in Health questions or with the chief executive of NHS England in a personal meeting the continuing concerns about the procurement of a PET scanner across Staffordshire, Cheshire and Lancashire, will the Leader of the House give assurances, amid concerns about openness and transparency, that there has been no undue influence from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as a board member of Alliance? There are real concerns about the possibility of a monopoly service, which may mean that the contract will need to be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority. Will the Leader of the House find time for a proper, open debate about these continuing concerns?

William Hague: The hon. Lady has raised related concerns before in the House. I am sorry that she was not able to do so in Health questions, because there will be no more Health questions before the election; we are entering a period in which some Departments will not have further questions before Dissolution. However, she is still able to ask written questions and to seek answers in every other way through correspondence with Health Ministers. I will draw their attention to the matter that she has raised. As Leader of the House, I cannot give her any assurances about what she has asked, but I know that my colleagues will want to attend to what she has raised in the House today.

Mark Pritchard: May we have a debate on the spiritual, cultural and musical contribution that cathedrals make to the life of the nation? During the 300th anniversary year of the Three Choirs festival, will the Leader of the House thank all those who have contributed to the festival over 300 years and the cathedrals of Worcester, Gloucester and Hereford that have hosted the event, and particularly Hereford that is hosting it this year?

William Hague: I certainly congratulate the cathedrals of Hereford, Worcester and Gloucester on this 300th anniversary. Cathedrals play an important part in the life of our country. As the House may be aware, the Prime Minister has asked me to oversee the plans for VE day, just after the general election. We have not yet announced those plans, but I have it in mind that they will involve the cathedrals of the country in an important way. They are an important thing to celebrate, as my hon. Friend has made clear.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Has the Leader had a bid from the Department for Transport for a debate on road safety? Even though our roads are among the safest in the world, the latest casualty statistics show some worrying trends. There is an ongoing concern about cycle safety and the Green Paper on graduated licensing has disappeared, so there is quite an appetite for a debate on road safety before Dissolution. Might that be possible?

William Hague: Road safety is a very important issue that Members on both sides of the House have always taken seriously and on which broadly the United Kingdom has a strong record by international standards. We have to maintain that, and it is right to debate it if there are any doubts about it. That is a legitimate subject to put forward to the Backbench Business Committee. I cannot offer any Government time for it in the remaining days of the Parliament. The Department for Transport does have questions remaining before Dissolution—next Thursday—and I encourage him to raise the issue then.

David Nuttall: May we please have a debate on nuisance phone calls, which would allow us to consider the merits of this week’s announcement by the Government on giving more powers to the Information Commission to stop unwanted calls? The proposal has been extremely popular among and warmly welcomed by my constituents in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington.

William Hague: My hon. Friend raises an important issue on which, as he says, the Government made an announcement this week. The statutory instrument was laid this week and will become effective by 6 April. The measure will make it much easier for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take action on nuisance calls, including by issuing monetary penalties. We have just had questions to the Department responsible, and while I cannot necessarily offer a debate, that would be a good issue on which to pursue one in the coming weeks.

Kevin Brennan: There is much discussion in the corridors of this place about whether the House might dissolve earlier than expected ahead of the general election. Should not hon. Members know
	now whether that is in the minds of the Leader of the House and his colleagues, given the implications for all of us of the date when we cease to be Members of the House?

William Hague: Tempting though it would be to spring a great surprise on the hon. Gentleman and others, the date of Dissolution is set down in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 as 30 March, so there is no doubt at all about that date. Of course, it is possible for people to speculate about a date for Prorogation in advance of Dissolution. The Chancellor has announced that he will present his Budget on 18 March, however, and I am sure that it will be necessary for the House to debate that Budget at some considerable length, so clearly the date of Prorogation will not be very much in advance of the date of Dissolution.

Bob Blackman: Local authorities throughout the country are finalising their budgets for the coming year. Tonight, Labour-run Harrow council will consider proposals from its administration to impose a garden tax on the collection of garden waste and to increase the council tax by 1.99%, thereby avoiding a referendum, while it is closing down popular libraries, including the Bob Lawrence library in my constituency. May we have a debate in Government time so that we can consider what local authorities throughout the country are doing to decimate local services and increase taxes?

William Hague: The people of Harrow are fortunate to have my hon. Friend to speak up for them when their local authority is behaving in that way. Rather than cutting front-line services and hiking council tax, councils should be making sensible savings, such as through more joint working, better procurement, cutting fraud and using transparency to drive out waste. It is disappointing that Labour-run councils such as Harrow are taking the lazy option of making cuts to the front line, rather than adopting many other local authorities’ best practice of making sensible savings.

Ian Murray: At my recent jobs and skills fair in Edinburgh, which was attended by hundreds of my constituents, one of the main conclusions was that the job-creation powers in the Work programme are best delivered by local authorities. In the last few weeks of his distinguished political career, will the Leader of the House take the opportunity to leave a lasting legacy—a legacy for which he will be known the world over—by finding time for the House to pass my Job Creation Powers (Scotland) Bill?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating for effect, tempting though it is to leave such a lasting legacy. Of course, many more powers, including for job creation, will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament by whoever wins the general election, because of the implementation of the Smith commission proposals. It will then be important that there is decentralisation within Scotland, because there is a danger for Scotland and Wales that England will become the most decentralised part of the United Kingdom before long, which will mean that devolution is not really leading to power going down to the local level. I know that the hon. Gentleman advocates that, but I cannot, just on that basis, agree to give Government support for his Bill.

Greg Mulholland: Children with Morquio disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy and tuberous sclerosis are being badly let down by NHS England, which cancelled its process of approval of the drugs for these ultra-rare conditions. I am sorry to say that these families now feel that they are being fobbed off by the Department of Health and Ministers. May we have an urgent statement to confirm that we will have what we asked for—an interim funding solution to fund these drugs, to be announced before this Parliament is dissolved?

William Hague: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which will be vital for the people most affected by it. As I have already pointed out, we have had the last regular Health questions of this Parliament, but Ministers will continue to respond to written questions and correspondence. I think the best thing I can do to help my hon. Friend is to refer this to the Health Ministers and tell them of his concern so that they can respond to him directly.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Following a campaign by the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, Labour colleagues and me, the Chancellor announced in his autumn statement a consultation on rip-off umbrella payroll companies. However, recent written answers show that the Government intend only to tinker around the edges and will not close the loopholes that result in workers losing hundreds of pounds per month. Can the Leader of the House tell us when the Chancellor will formally announce his plans to the House and explain why low-paid workers continue to lose out under his Government?

William Hague: There will be many opportunities in the coming month to debate matters with the Chancellor, who is regularly in the House. It will be Treasury questions on 10 March and then, of course, he will present the Budget on 18 March. I do not know when the Chancellor intends to present his final conclusions on that, but we will have debates on the Budget so it will be possible to debate what is or is not in the Budget statement in the course of those debates. That will be the best opportunity for the hon. Lady.

Philip Davies: As the Leader of the House knows, many of my constituents are concerned about the level of immigration and the strain that that places upon the NHS, school places and housing, and the effect it has on the overall wages of workers. May we have a debate on immigration to see whether we can address some of those concerns? In such a debate we can count the number of Members who accept the blindingly obvious: that no Government can control the level of immigration while we are a member of the European Union and have free movement of people.

William Hague: My hon. Friend will be familiar with the plans that the Prime Minister has set out—the Conservative party’s plans for after the general election, to negotiate a better relationship with the EU and a reformed European Union in which it will be possible for this country to take actions that we cannot take now, particularly on welfare payments and other issues relating to immigration. This is, of course, a very important issue, which my hon. Friend has raised regularly. Part of what we are seeing
	at present is the impact of this country’s having a dramatically stronger economy than the rest of Europe, which is producing more migration into the UK. In that sense it is a problem of success, but it remains an important issue. Although the shadow Leader of the House raised it in earlier questions, she omitted to mention the completely open-door policy of the Labour Government, during which millions of people migrated to the United Kingdom, and we are certainly not going back to those days.

Mike Kane: Last week I met Sam, Charlotte, Sarah and Sara, constituents of mine, who gave me their personal testimonies about the physical, emotional and sexual violence that they had suffered, perpetrated by their ex-partners. I am sure the Leader of the House will commend their bravery in coming forward to talk to their MP about that. They are also campaigning for safe spots with businesses and public agencies in Wythenshawe town centre, where people may go in future for advice and support. My parliamentary office has signed up to be one such safe spot. Is it time that the House authorities considered creating a safe spot here on the parliamentary estate?

William Hague: That is an interesting idea. I salute the courage of the individuals whom the hon. Gentleman met. I have had many distressing conversations internationally with victims of sexual violence—he will be aware of my campaign on that—and I am very much aware of the courage that it takes to speak out and to speak to other people about such experiences. We will have to consider with other authorities in the House whether it is possible to do what he has just proposed, but we should give consideration to that.

Peter Bone: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could give me some guidance on next week’s business. I have a number of private Members’ Bills that I can move on Friday. Will he indicate which ones the Government are going to support so that I know what to concentrate on? Here is the list: the Wind Farm Subsidies (Abolition) Bill, the Department of Energy and Climate Chance (Abolition) Bill, the Foreign National Offenders (Exclusion from the United Kingdom) Bill, the Free Movement of Persons into the United Kingdom (Derogation) Bill and—my personal favourite—the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill.

William Hague: I cannot indicate a sudden rush of Government support for the massive legislative programme on which my hon. Friend has embarked so indefatigably—indeed, we have all seen on the BBC how many sleepless nights he had in order to put together this massive legislative programme. As he might anticipate, his Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Abolition) Bill could run into handling problems in the coalition Government, to put it mildly, so I do not expect the Government to perform a sharp about-turn on these issues, but he will have to wait until the day—it will be exciting—to see which Bills the Government object to.

Mark Williams: The work of VisitWales to promote the tourism industry in Wales would be greatly enhanced were VAT on tourism to be reduced. May we have a debate on reducing VAT on
	tourism, particularly given its importance for rural areas, which are very dependent on the tourism sector, including counties such as Ceredigion and Montgomeryshire, which is soon to be the Leader of the House’s home county?

William Hague: I certainly recommend to everybody in the country, and indeed around the world, tourism in Wales where they can see many splendid sites, some very fine countryside and great history. That is true in Ceredigion, where I know tourism is a key industry. There are opportunities coming up in the House—Treasury questions on 10 March and then the Budget debate—to raise issues about VAT. In the meantime, I know that that Welsh Government can and do provide support for tourism, and all of us can set a good example of tourism in Wales.

Adam Afriyie: Looking around the Chamber, it is quite clear that not all of us come from advantaged or affluent backgrounds, and perhaps that includes you, Mr Speaker, and even the Leader of the House. In the previous Parliament, when I was shadow Minister for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and then shadow Minister for Innovation and Science, it became increasingly clear that social mobility was slowing down. I therefore very much welcome the recent figures showing that 20% more people from disadvantaged backgrounds are now going to university. May we have a debate on the growing levels of social mobility resulting from the policies of the coalition Government?

William Hague: I think that is an excellent idea. That increase in the proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university is a significant development, and it is very different from what was forecast when tuition fees and other matters were being debated in the House. It is a very serious success. It will help long-term social mobility. I would very much welcome such a debate, although I cannot offer it, given the constraints on Government time. It is the sort of debate that my hon. Friend could put to the Backbench Business Committee.

Matthew Offord: Less than 2% of medical research funding in the UK is directed towards the eye and sight-related issues. Given that 40 people a day—about the number of Members in the Chamber today—lose their sight, and up to 2 million people in this country are living with sight loss-related issues, may we have a debate in Government time to see how we can address the issue and increase funding in the next Parliament?

William Hague: We might not be able to have a debate before Dissolution, but I can tell my hon. Friend that investment in eye-related research by the National Institute for Health Research has risen over the past four years, from £7.1 million a year to £15.6 million. Although that is a small proportion of total research, the amount has doubled under this Government. The institute welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including eye care, so there is every opportunity to expand that research further in the coming months and years.

Mary Macleod: My right hon. Friend has done incredible work on sexual violence in conflicts, so he absolutely understands the
	importance of the issue of violence against women and girls. In this country, two women a week still get killed by a partner or former partner. Will he consider providing some Government time on Thursday 12 March, when we have sixth-form girls coming to shadow their MPs from all parts of the House—also supported by Mr Speaker —so that we can inspire the next generation to say no to domestic abuse and violence?

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I congratulate her very much on all she has done to highlight this issue. I am delighted that the Backbench Business Committee has allocated time on the Floor of the House, not on 12 March but on 5 March, next week, for a debate to mark international women’s day. That will allow Members to raise issues celebrating the achievements of women but also about tackling violence against women. It is right that the House keeps that on the agenda, and I am determined to keep it on the international agenda. I welcome everything my hon. Friend does on this, including helping to bring people to the House to discuss these things on 12 March.

Robert Halfon: May we have an urgent statement on the fact that doctors are charging families £80 every time they sign a cremation consent form? A resident in my constituency, Lee Dangerfield, had to pay £160 to doctors when his father sadly passed away, causing him financial hardship at what was already a difficult time. In 2010, it was estimated that doctors were topping up their salaries by an extra £15 million a year by signing these forms. Will my right hon. Friend write to the Health Secretary about this to see why these fees are necessary, given that this practice seems to be part of the day-to-day job of being a doctor in the free NHS?

William Hague: As my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is in his place and has been listening to that question, I shall not need to write to him about it; he has taken note of it. The Government are committed to reform of the death certification system. When a patient dies, it is the statutory duty of the doctor who has attended them in their last illness to issue a medical certificate of cause of death. There is no fee payable for completing that, but there are other forms before cremation of a deceased patient. The proposed reform of the system to which the Government are committed would remove the need for cremation form fees. My right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend’s point about the urgency of tackling this.

Jeremy Lefroy: During this Parliament we have had the welcome practice of Government coming to the House in the event that military action is contemplated. What would happen during Dissolution in the very serious event that that might again be the case?

William Hague: An important convention has grown up that the Government come to the House in the event of military action. During a Dissolution there is no provision for the recall of the House. When Parliament has been dissolved, none of us are MPs after 30 March so it is not possible to recall it. In the highly unusual circumstances of military action that might then arise, of course we continue very much to have a Government who would,
	I am sure, in any set of circumstances handle the situation extremely responsibly. This Government are always vigilant about our national security, and that will remain the case during Dissolution. I think that in the circumstances that my hon. Friend mentions, what would happen in practice is that whoever emerged in government after the general election would need to come to Parliament as soon as possible thereafter for parliamentary debate on the issue.

Andrew Jones: We are in the middle of Fairtrade fortnight. On Saturday, I will join Harrogate Fairtrade Campaign at St Peter’s church for its annual fair trade coffee morning. I am rather looking forward to that, having been the borough’s fair trade champion for years, and it is always a very successful event. May we have a debate about fair trade and its impact on millions of people across the developing world, and perhaps also look at what we can do to encourage more towns and boroughs to become fair trade champions?

William Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on fair trade. It would indeed be very good if other towns followed his example and that of Harrogate in having an annual Fairtrade coffee morning and other activities. Fair trade plays a very important role in improving the lives of some of the poorest people in the world, and the UK Government are a committed partner of Fairtrade. I doubt that there will be time for a debate before the Dissolution of Parliament, but I can tell him that the UK’s commitment is demonstrated by the fact that the Department for International Development has recently extended our support for Fairtrade International to £18 million over six years.

Andrew Stephenson: Thanks to substantial school capital funding from the current Government, when Lancashire county council was run by the Conservatives funding was allocated for four brand-new primary schools across Pendle, which have now all been built and opened, and for a £6.2 million facelift for West Craven high school. Sadly, since Labour won back control in 2013, Pendle is once again being overlooked. May we have time for a debate in which I can highlight the need for investment in some of our other high schools, such as Park high school in Colne, which I have been calling for since I was elected?

William Hague: My hon. Friend is a great champion for Pendle on all issues. Since 2011, we have allocated £112 million for the improvement and maintenance of schools in Lancashire, and we have recently announced a further £23.8 million for the coming year, so Pendle ought to have its fair share. Lancashire county council is responsible for the maintenance of community schools
	in its area, and it is for the council to prioritise its local investment needs, but if it does not give proper priority to Pendle, people will know how to vote in coming elections.

Mark Pawsey: May we have a debate on the funding of school transport? There is concern among parents in Rugby, where we have choice in secondary education, including three excellent grammar schools—Lawrence Sheriff, Rugby high and Ashlawn—that the local authority is considering the withdrawal of funding for transport for pupils who do not attend their closest school. If implemented, that could lead to some young people being denied the education to which they are entitled.

William Hague: As my hon. Friend will know, the statutory position is that the local authority must provide free home-to-school transport for pupils of compulsory school age who attend their nearest suitable school, provided that the school is beyond the statutory walking distance. Beyond that, however, local authorities have discretion about what to do. A debate would certainly allow him to explore further with Ministers his view that all pupils should get the education they deserve, regardless of their ability to pay for transport, which is a very important consideration. I encourage him to pursue such a debate through all the normal channels of Adjournment debates and the Backbench Business Committee.

Philip Hollobone: I bring good news from Kettering. Last night, Conservative-controlled Kettering borough council, of which I have the privilege to be a member, announced that it will freeze its share of council tax for the fifth year in a row, while confirming lower car parking charges and protecting funding for front-line services and the voluntary sector. May we have a statement from the Department for Communities and Local Government about this remarkable success story? Such a statement could highlight how many other councils have managed to freeze council tax over the lifetime of this Parliament to deliver cost-effective, value-for-money local government services.

William Hague: The good news from Kettering never seems to end, which is very closely connected with my hon. Friend’s tenure as Member of Parliament for Kettering and, as he says, with the good work of his Conservative-controlled council. That sort of record—freezing council tax for the fifth year running, while reducing other charges and improving local services— is exactly what responsibly run local authorities have been able to achieve. It is a dramatic contrast with the doubling of council tax across the country under the previous Labour Government. It is exactly the kind of thing that could be achieved by more local authorities across the country if they followed the example of Kettering.

Jimmy Savile (NHS Investigations)

Jeremy Hunt: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the NHS investigations into Jimmy Savile.
	This morning, a further 16 investigations into the activities of Savile in the NHS were published. Those include the main report from Stoke Mandeville hospital and reports from 15 other hospitals. One report relates to Johnny Savile, the older brother of Jimmy Savile.
	Although no system can ever be totally secure from a manipulative and deceitful predator such as Savile, we learned last year that there were clear failings in the security, culture and processes of many NHS organisations, allowing terrible abuse to continue unchecked over many years.
	Some victims are sadly no longer with us and others continue to suffer greatly as a result of what happened. I apologised to them last June on behalf of the Government, and today I repeat that apology: what happened was horrific, caused immeasurable and often permanent damage, and betrayed vulnerable people who trusted us to keep them safe. We let them down. As one of the Stoke Mandeville victims said:
	“There are so many messed up lives—although people have built up lives, you have children, you make a life, it ruins everything, your relationships with another human being—the things you are supposed to have.”
	Today, we must show by our deeds as well as our words that we have learned the necessary lessons.
	The new reports, like those released last year, make extremely distressing reading. In total, 177 men and women have come forward with allegations of abuse by Jimmy Savile, covering a period beginning in 1954 and lasting until just before his death in 2011. At least 72 people who gave evidence were children at the time of the abuse, the youngest only five years old. The allegations include rape, assault, indecent assault and inappropriate comments or advances.
	Allegations have been made not in one or two places, but in over 41 acute hospitals—almost a quarter of all NHS acute hospitals—as well as in five mental health trusts and two children’s hospitals. Further investigations have happened at a children’s convalescent home, an ambulance service and a hospice. Three new investigations are under way at Humber NHS Foundation Trust, Mersey Care NHS Trust and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. Any further allegations that are received will, of course, be investigated as serious incidents.
	In addition, the Department for Education has today published 14 reports on investigations in children’s homes and educational settings, and the review by Dame Janet Smith into Savile’s activities at the BBC is ongoing.
	The investigations have been deeply harrowing for the victims, but also for the investigators. I put on the record my thanks to everyone involved, particularly Kate Lampard and those at the NHS Savile Legacy Unit, who have provided robust oversight and assurance in an incredibly difficult job.
	I now turn to Stoke Mandeville—the hospital with which Savile was most closely associated. The report published today reveals some shocking abuse of 60 victims
	that took place over more than 20 years between 1968 and 1992. From the brave victims who have come forward, we know that Savile’s activities there included groping, molestation and rape of patients, staff and visitors. The victims were predominantly, but not exclusively, female. Twenty of them were vulnerable patients who were disabled with severe spinal injuries. One was a child as young as eight. Savile deliberately exploited those people because he understood their reliance on specialist care that they might only be able to receive at Stoke Mandeville, making it even harder for them to speak up. It was calculating behaviour of the most abhorrent kind. Victims included 26 visitors and six staff. Six victims reported being raped, one as young as 11 or 12. Most victims were too frightened to come forward, but there were nine informal complaints and one made formally. None was taken seriously.
	There is no suggestion that Ministers or officials knew about those activities, but accepted governance processes were not followed in the decision to allow Savile to acquire and maintain a position of authority at the hospital. In particular, Ministers made the expedient decision to use Savile not just to raise funds to redevelop Stoke Mandeville’s national spinal injuries centre but to oversee the building and running of the centre, even though he had no relevant experience. Because of his celebrity and useful fundraising skills, the right questions—the hard questions—simply were not asked. Suspicions were not acted on, and patients and staff were ignored. People were either too dazzled or too intimidated by the nation’s favourite celebrity to confront the evil predator we now know he was. Never again must the power of money or celebrity blind us to repeated, clear signals such as those that suggested that some extremely vulnerable people were being abused.
	I spoke last June about how changes to processes, policies and laws over the past 30 years have made it much less likely that a predator like Savile would be able to perpetrate these crimes today. Charity legislation is much tougher and sets out specific requirements for the auditing and examination of NHS charities’ accounts. The safeguarding system now in place is significantly improved. The Children Act 1989, the first child sex offenders register, Criminal Records Bureau checks and the Disclosure and Barring Service have all provided further protection. The Care Act 2014 will put adult safeguarding on a legal footing for the first time from 1 April, and safeguarding adults boards will ensure that local safeguarding arrangements act to help and protect adults. We have enshrined the right to speak up in staff contracts, and we are amending the NHS constitution and changing the law to make employers responsible if whistleblowers are harassed or bullied by fellow employees. We are also consulting on how best to implement the recommendations in Sir Robert Francis’s whistleblowing review.
	However, proper policies and processes will not succeed if they do not go hand in hand with a change in culture whereby patients and staff alike feel able to speak out with any concerns, and can be confident that they will be listened to. It is particularly important that children and those with physical and mental illnesses are listened to, because they are the most vulnerable. Although we are proud to live in a society in which people are innocent until proven guilty, we have a collective responsibility to investigate all serious allegations properly in a way that simply did not happen time after time.
	In the light of these disturbing reports, I also asked Kate Lampard to outline key themes across all the NHS investigations and to consider any further action that needs to be taken. She considered the extent to which Savile was a product of the culture of his time and concluded that although he was “a one-off”, there are important improvements that need to be made to protect patients today. Hers is a thoughtful and comprehensive report, and I am today accepting in principle 13 recommendations that she makes, including on access, volunteering, safeguarding, complaints and governance. Trusts should develop policies on visits by celebrities, and on internet and social media access across hospitals. They should review voluntary service arrangements, safeguarding resources and the consistency of employment practices, ensuring clear executive responsibility. They should consider whether policies on the impact of volunteers on a trust’s reputation are adequate.
	The Department, with its arm’s length bodies, will examine the possible development of a forum for NHS voluntary service managers, the raising of awareness of safeguarding referrals among NHS employers, and to what extent NHS trust staff and volunteers should undergo refresher training in safeguarding.
	I know that some trusts that produced reports last summer have started to make improvements. One trust has already encouraged staff to raise concerns, updated its whistleblowing and complaints policy and published a policy on the recruiting and management of volunteers. It is that kind of sensible, swift action that I want to see across the NHS. I have therefore asked the chief executives of Monitor and the Trust Development Authority to ensure that all trusts review their current practice against the recommendations within three months, and then to write back to me with a summary of plans and progress at each trust. Those plans will be fed into the Government’s ongoing work to tackle child sexual exploitation.
	One welcome practice that Kate Lampard’s report highlights is the growth in volunteering to support the work of the NHS. Overall across the NHS we estimate there are 78,000 volunteers, including 1,500 at just one trust—King’s—in London. They do a magnificent job in improving patient care every single day throughout the NHS. We welcome that civic revolution, and today need to ensure that any safeguards put in place support its future growth by helping to protect the reputation of volunteering as well as the safety of patients. Hard cases make bad law, and it would be the ultimate tragedy if Savile’s legacy was to hold back the work of the NHS’s true heroes who give so much to their local hospital by volunteering their time.
	While I agree that all volunteers working in regulated activity—typically close or unsupervised contact with patients—should have an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check, I am not today accepting the recommendation that that should apply to all volunteers. As Kate Lampard acknowledges in her report, such a system may not in itself have stopped Savile. Instead, trusts should take a considered approach to checks on all volunteers, particularly using the enhanced DBS service if there is a possibility that someone will be asked at a future date to work closely with patients. They should also ensure that proper safeguarding
	procedures are in place locally, as well as the DBS process, because it would be wrong to rely on a national database as a substitute for local common sense and vigilance.
	The report recommends that DBS checks are redone every three years. I believe the report is correct to say that trusts must ensure that their information on volunteers is up to date, but they can achieve that through asking volunteers to make use of the DBS update service that enables trusts to check DBS information regularly, and avoids volunteers having to go through the DBS process multiple times. We will be advising all trusts to do that.
	Finally, I intend to take action in one area of great concern that the report highlights, namely the responsibility and accountability of staff working with vulnerable people to take appropriate action when alerted to potential abuse. As the report recognises, the Government have substantially strengthened safeguarding arrangements since these dreadful events, but it is clear that there should have been a much stronger incentive on staff and managers to pass on information so that a proper investigation took place. That is clearly unacceptable, and the Government have already said that we will consult on introducing a new requirement for the mandatory reporting of abuse of children and vulnerable adults. The outcome of such a consultation must take full account of the need to avoid unintended consequences.
	Let me conclude with a tribute to the victims who have had the courage to come forward, because without them these investigations would not have been possible: it is our society’s shame that you were ignored for so long, but it is a tribute to your bravery that today we can take actions to prevent others from going through the misery you have endured. As a result, our NHS will be made safer for thousands of children and vulnerable adults as we learn the uncomfortable lessons from this terrible tragedy. I commend this statement to the House.

Andy Burnham: I thank the Secretary of State for his considered and thorough statement, and for his evident concern for the many lives that have been damaged by these vile acts and systemic failures. He was right to repeat his apology to Savile’s many victims and their families, and the whole House will support his decision to do so. I add my thanks to all those involved in compiling these reports, and particularly Kate Lampard and Ed Marsden for their “Lessons Learned” report. Through their diligent work, the full scale and horror of Savile’s sickening behaviour across the NHS has finally been laid bare. It beggars belief that abuse on this scale, known to so many people, was allowed to continue for so long. As the analysis of what happened becomes more complete and the full picture emerges, the question will grow in people’s minds: “Where is the accountability?” That is what victims are crying out for, and that is what must follow. It must be the single most important question occupying the Government in dealing with these matters, and it must continue to be a priority for the next Government and the next Parliament.
	Much of what is revealed in the reports confirms what we already know about a pattern of criminal behaviour in hospitals where patients and victims were not listened to and staff felt unable or unwilling to challenge, but what changes with the Stoke Mandeville
	report is that it is now no longer possible to say that although the abuse was widespread, it was not known to people in senior positions. Nine verbal reports and one formal complaint were made, but none was acted upon. Why? The questions do not just extend to senior staff at the hospitals, and the Secretary of State was right to raise questions about the role of civil servants and former Ministers. To quote one of the main observations of the “Lessons Learned” report:
	“As the investigations at Broadmoor and at Stoke Mandeville show, Savile’s involvement with those hospitals was supported and facilitated by Ministers or senior civil servants”.
	We already knew that he was appointed by Edwina Currie to the taskforce that ran Broadmoor between 1988 and 1989, but today’s Stoke Mandeville report states:
	“From 1980 Savile’s relationship with Stoke Mandeville Hospital underwent a significant change when he was appointed by Government Ministers…to fundraise for…the new National Spinal Injuries Centre”.
	The “Lessons Learned” report concludes:
	“In appointing Savile to these roles, and in allowing him the licence and free rein he had in exercising these roles, Ministers and/or civil servants either overrode or failed to observe accepted governance processes.”
	That extremely serious finding needs to be acted upon.
	I do not expect the Secretary of State today to answer these points in detail, and I welcome what he said in facing up to the findings, but does he agree that they point to the need for a more formal inquiry process involving senior people from that time—senior people in the hospitals concerned, senior people in the Department of Health and former Ministers? Knowing what we now know, we cannot simply leave this here. Victims must have accountability. That must be our shared goal across the House.
	Alongside accountability, Savile’s victims need help. As the Secretary of State said, many lives have been damaged by what happened and will never recover. Nothing can be done to heal their pain, but there are things that could help them. In his last statement, he said that he would continue to explore the possibility of compensating victims using Savile’s estate to fund any claims. Will he update the House on that work? Is the value of Savile’s estate anywhere near enough to provide adequate compensation to his many victims? Has the Secretary of State made any judgment about whether public funding is needed to help compensate them? Today’s news will distress everyone directly affected. What steps are being taken to them offer counselling and other support?
	Turning directly to the “Lessons Learned” report, while these appalling events come from a very different era, it would be a major mistake for the House or anybody reading the reports to think they have no relevance to today. To quote a chilling conclusion from the Lampard and Marsden report:
	“The evidence we have gathered indicated that there are many elements of the Savile story that could be repeated in future.”
	We know that a child cancer specialist from Addenbrooke’s was recently convicted for sexual offences against vulnerable boys as young as eight who were in his care.
	Even though the world was very different in the 1970s and 1980s, it is impossible to read these reports without wondering how so many people could have known what was going on, yet felt they could not do anything about it. It must never again be the case that a member of staff
	should be made to feel unable to speak up for fear of “letting the hospital down”. They must feel fully supported at all times in reporting any act of abuse against anybody in the place in which they work. While we welcome the action the Secretary of State is taking to support NHS whistleblowers and strengthen their position, we cannot complacently think that this will be enough in these kinds of situations.
	On Monday, the Government voted against the new legal requirement for those working in schools, hospitals and child care settings to report to the police child abuse in institutional settings. The purpose of such a requirement would be to make sure that no professional ever felt the protection of the reputation of the institution should take priority over the protection of a child or pursuing the truth. I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State said about this today. He said that there will now be a process of consultation on a proposed mandatory reporting duty. That is indeed a step forward, which I welcome. I understand why the Government would want to consult—because of the effect such a requirement could have on the working of an organisation. I want to push the right hon. Gentleman a little further and say that this consultation should not be open-ended, but a consultation leading to a firm commitment to legislate at the earliest opportunity—if not in this, in the next Parliament. I believe that that is the growing will of this House and I believe it will be the growing will of the next one.
	On vetting and barring, the Secretary of State made some welcome proposals, and Kate Lampard has highlighted the need for a new focus on this area. There is a concern that changes to the vetting and barring scheme in this Parliament have significantly weakened its ability to protect children from convicted sex offenders. There is a concern that some offenders are being left off the list or that there is now a limit to the number of roles that offenders can be checked against, so that the potential for offenders to gain access to vulnerable people has increased.
	Will the Secretary of State look again at the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, and ensure that every possible step is taken to close any possible loophole that could be exploited by a sex offender? As Kate Lampard rightly said, hospitals in the coming era are going to have to be more reliant on the work of volunteers and on fundraising. That is the context in which the NHS will operate for some considerable time and, in that context, there will be a need for a greater number of checks to ensure that those participating in the volunteering or the fundraising are appropriate people for roles in any hospital organisation. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the vetting and barring scheme is up to that task, so that we leave no loopholes for convicted paedophiles or sex offenders to exploit.
	In conclusion, these are painful, appalling and sickening events that are a dark chapter in the history of the NHS and indeed of our country. We applaud the Secretary of State and the Government for their commitment and thoroughness in facing up to these events of our past. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of our full support in bringing accountability and redress for the victims, and in ensuring that whatever can be done across the Floor of the House is done, so that these kind of events can never take place again in our national health service.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the shadow Health Secretary for his constructive comments. I think the whole House will unite to ensure that all the necessary lessons are learned. I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s praise for the 44 very thorough reports that involved such painstaking and difficult work, and the superb job done by Kate Lampard and Ed Marsden in bringing together all those reports and thinking about the lessons that needed to be learned.
	As the right hon. Gentleman observed, Kate Lampard has stated very clearly that while she does not think that there will be another instance of this kind in the future, elements of it could come about. It would be a mistake to say that this is all about stopping another Savile. We need to think more broadly about how abuse could take place in a modern context, and ensure that we learn broader lessons—which, indeed, we are learning in the context of what has happened in Rotherham, in Rochdale and elsewhere.
	The right hon. Gentleman is right about the role of accountability, which clearly needs to be greatly improved. Let me answer, very directly, his question “Why was nothing done?” I think the report makes clear why nothing was done, and this is the tragedy. It was Savile’s importance, because of his fundraising, to institutions such as Stoke Mandeville in particular, as well as his celebrity, that made people afraid to speak out—and we should remember that, in all likelihood, many people have still not spoken out—but also made it less likely that something would be done when they did speak out, and that is what must never, ever be allowed to happen again.
	The report does not directly criticise Ministers and civil servants for the abuse. It says there is no evidence that they had any knowledge of it. We must recognise, however, that the system itself was flawed, which is why the fact of the abuse never reached the ears of Ministers and others who were making decisions about Savile’s influence. What the report does say is that it was questionable whether processes should have been overridden, particularly in respect of financial propriety. The role that Savile was given in the construction of the new spinal injures centre at Stoke Mandeville was smoothed over as quickly as possible, because people thought that he would be able to bring a lot of money to the table, and that he would “walk”—that was the word used by the civil servants—if any bureaucratic obstacles were put in his way. That was wrong, and we can see that. It is vital for us to learn the lessons.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about the value of the Savile estate. A total of £40 million remains under management in his charities. That money will be made available to meet claims made by Savile’s victims, and if it is not enough, the Government will meet any further claims through the NHS Litigation Authority. I can also confirm that any counselling that the victims need will be made available to them by the NHS.
	I do not think that there is an disagreement in principle on the issue of mandatory reporting, but it is important for a proper consultation to take place, which is why it would not have been right to pass a law as early as last week. We all want there to be a proper, strong incentive for those who are responsible for the care of vulnerable adults and children to report any concerns that are raised with them, and to ensure that something is done if any allegations are made. However, we also want to avoid the unintended consequences that might follow if
	legislation were badly drafted. It is particularly important for us to protect the ability of professionals to make judgments based on their assessment of what is actually happening.
	We want to avoid the risk that the processes that are followed, and the ultimate decisions that are made, will not be in the best interests of the children or vulnerable adults concerned because people are following a legalistic process rather than doing what is right on the ground. No one would want that to happen, which is why it is so important for us to get the legislation exactly right. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that following the consultation—which we will carry out soon as possible—we will legislate if necessary.
	It is also important to say that there is a role for the professional codes in this area; this is about the correct professional ethics. We changed the professional codes for doctors and nurses following the Francis report, to encourage them to speak out, and there may well be lessons that need to be learned in that regard.
	On the operation of the disclosure and barring system, we will of course look closely at what the shadow Home Secretary is suggesting, but a big improvement has been made to the new DBS arrangements, compared with the old Criminal Records Bureau system, in the form of the update service. Volunteers can subscribe to that service, and we are recommending today that all trusts ask volunteers to do so as a condition of their volunteering—

Mr Speaker: Order. These are extremely important matters of the highest sensitivity, and I appreciate the solicitousness with which the Secretary of State is treating them, but we have two heavily subscribed debates to which we have to progress and, before them, a statement from the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee. The Front-Bench exchanges have so far taken up half an hour, and that is too long. I should therefore be most grateful for the co-operation of the Secretary of State. If he could pithily draw his remarks to a close so that we can get on to the questioning by hon. Members from the Back Benches, that would be a great advance for the House and possibly for civilisation.

Jeremy Hunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I did want to give a full response to the shadow Health Secretary, but I am happy to address any other concerns he has at a later stage.

Sarah Wollaston: The Secretary of State has set out in the starkest terms the extent of the vile abuse perpetrated by Savile. It is also chilling to note in Kate Lampard’s excellent report that between 60% and 90% of child abuse is still going unreported. Those who perpetrate it are adept at adapting their mechanisms, and recommendation 9 in the report mentions the extent to which abusers use social media to abuse children on hospital sites. Can the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is going to implement recommendation 9, and if so, how that will happen?

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, we are; that is very important. We absolutely accept the principle that all hospitals must have explicit policies on the use of social media. We must do everything we can. It is difficult to stop people going on to Facebook, for example, but when it comes
	to internet access by children, there are things that we can do, and we will absolutely be implementing that recommendation.

Fabian Hamilton: I was Savile’s Member of Parliament and, as the Secretary of State can imagine, Leeds North East has its fair share of his victims. One such victim approached me recently in great distress. He had been abused as a child by Savile and had given his story to the police after decades, but it was not a complete story. When he was subsequently interviewed by NHS staff, they did not believe his story because it was inconsistent, owing to the fear that he had felt over the decades following the abuse. Will the Secretary of State reassure my constituent and the many others like him that they will not become victims twice?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I have great sympathy for his constituent. The information was not collated centrally. There were a number of reports about which we might have been sceptical if we had read them in isolation, but when we read them together with other reports, we see a pattern and we can conclude, as the investigation has done, that those incidents did indeed take place. That is one of the big learning points: we have to collate information that different victims provide at different times, to ensure that proper judgments can be made and that action can be taken.

Cheryl Gillan: It has been truly sickening to read in the report that over two decades, money, influence, celebrity and people being star-struck could allow Savile the licence serially to abuse so many people, particularly in our local Buckinghamshire hospital at Stoke Mandeville. I really welcome the apologies from the Secretary of State and from our local chief executive officer, Anne Eden, who has given a heartfelt apology and praised the courage of those who have come forward. May I press the Secretary of State further on mandatory reporting? It is exceedingly important that we start that consultation as rapidly as possible. It was obvious that the proposed clause in the Serious Crime Bill was flawed in many ways. When will he start the consultation, and when will the terms of reference be available? Will he now undertake to legislate as soon as the consultation has produced results?

Jeremy Hunt: I can certainly give that undertaking: we will start the consultation as soon as possible and if the conclusion is for legislation, we will legislate as soon as possible. I hope that my right hon. Friend understands that there is a great deal of complexity involved in getting this right. It is very important to talk to victims and to people who are looking at the evidence on mandatory reporting, which happens in other parts of the world, with very mixed results. Most importantly, we want to avoid the unintended consequence of a decision being taken against the interests of a child or vulnerable person because people are following a legalistic process which undermines the proper professional judgment made on the ground.

Kerry McCarthy: The sheer scale of this—the number of assaults, and the range of victims and locations—is just horrific, as I am sure everyone will agree. As has been said, the report states
	that 60% to 90% of current assaults on children are probably going unreported. Does the Health Secretary not think that better—indeed, compulsory—sexual relationships education in schools would mean that children are more likely to come forward and, importantly, that once they have gone through that education at school their parents would be more likely to believe them?

Jeremy Hunt: I do think it is very important to have good sex education in schools and that we make sure that all children understand when a boundary has been crossed and when they need to speak out. That is an important lesson from this report.

Robert Jenrick: May I draw the House’s attention to another report published today, that concerning Rampton hospital in my constituency? Jimmy Savile was given almost unrestricted access to one of the UK’s most highly secure hospitals, which adds another layer to the matter. Rampton hospital contains some of the UK’s most dangerous patients. One of the most concerning issues in the Rampton report is that for staff his activities were described as an “open secret” but that management may not have known about them. If that finding is credible—it does not ring true with colleagues at the hospital I have spoken to—and is to be believed, would the Secretary of State give thought and resources to how we deal with whistleblowing and reporting in these most closed and secretive environments, where it seems to be the most important to have an open culture?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks wisely. There were four separate disclosures of sexually inappropriate behaviour by Savile in separate incidents, not with patients, but with other people, including a young child. My hon. Friend is right: it is not just about mandatory reporting; it is also about making sure that when that reporting is done by a member of staff, something actually happens. That is part of the reason we need to do this consultation properly, because it is about making sure that the right actions are taken by people who are able to take those actions. That clearly did not happen in this case.

Paul Flynn: On 11 different occasions, Savile attended new year’s eve parties at 10 Downing street. He was honoured, knighted and lionised by the establishment. They might not have known, but the unanswered question is: why did the intelligence and security services not warn? Why did they constantly give him clearance, allowing him not only to mix with Prime Ministers and royalty, but to prey on these defenceless innocents?

Jeremy Hunt: The reason, I think, is that the security services would not have known about this. What the report makes clear is that where people did speak out about concerns, nothing was done. That is what is so unacceptable and what we have to change. Savile was a national celebrity, who was treated as such by the establishment at the time, the establishment not having any idea of this evil abuse that was happening.

Dominic Grieve: I am very grateful to hear the Secretary of State’s statement, and I am sure it will provide reassurance in my constituency,
	which is also served by Stoke Mandeville hospital, that these terrible events and the underlying issues will be properly addressed. May I urge the Secretary of State on one point that emerges from the report, which is that common sense was suspended in this period? We may consider putting in systems, be it enhancing vetting or trying to make sure that volunteers are properly screened, but none of those will ultimately make a difference unless the overall culture that is there for the promotion and protection of the patient is so well ingrained that people exercise common sense in ensuring that that protection is provided. The most worrying aspect of this report is the way in which that was totally lost over a prolonged period.

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. That is why, if we change the law on mandatory reporting in any way, we need to be careful that we do not inadvertently give licence to the suspension of common sense. It is why we decided not to accept only one recommendation—the mandatory disclosure and barring checks on all volunteers in hospitals, even if they are not in close contact with patients. We believe that common sense and vigilance at local level will be one of the key ways in which we stop this happening again.

Tim Loughton: The Savile revelations never cease to amaze and shock, but are they in some respects a distraction from the bigger issues? The vast majority of abusers are not celebrities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bigger issues are the mindset that said, when concerns were raised, “Oh, it’s just Jimmy”, the fact that police were told to turn a blind eye, and suggestions that other doctors and clinicians were also active paedophiles and were complicit in the abuse in some way? Is not the bigger issue the institutional conspiracy to abuse? How will this report feed into the essential inquiry now under way with Justice Lowell Goddard?

Jeremy Hunt: What we are announcing today will be closely fed into the report that the Home Office is currently overseeing. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, some things in the report would not happen today. We can be confident that the culture across the NHS and social services has changed significantly in a positive way. There is much greater awareness of safeguarding issues. However, the report also said that elements of other things that it highlighted could happen today. That is why it is so important that we learn the necessary lessons.

Duncan Hames: The reports make it clear that Ministers’ appointment and use of Savile was improper and often contrary to advice from clinicians and officials. Former Minister Edwina Currie is quoted as telling the investigation last year:
	“He knew how to pin people to the wall and get from them what he wanted. … he’d had a look at everything he could use to blackmail the POA … I thought it was a pretty classy piece of operation.”
	Ministers Vaughan and Jenkin appointed Jimmy Savile to oversee the rebuilding of the national spinal injuries centre, contrary to advice, we are told in today’s report, from officials who thought that it would be better for
	those funds to be spent on centres of expertise around the country. Is it not critical that we understand the governance failures in this sorry saga, and that that insight feeds into the work of the Goddard inquiry?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course it is important that we learn the governance lessons, but the report is careful. It does not use the word “improper” in relation to the behaviour of Ministers or civil servants. It says that they acted reasonably. It raises some important questions, and I hope that the tone of my statement will reassure my hon. Friend that I do not seek to duck the fact that there are clearly questions about whether Ministers and civil servants behaved in the appropriate way. It is important that we learn the lessons from what went wrong.

Phillip Lee: I represent the constituency that is home to Broadmoor hospital, and I worked at Stoke Mandeville for two years in the early part of this century, so I have taken a deep personal interest in the investigation. I find it difficult to comprehend or accept that senior managers and clinicians were not aware of the allegations. I can find no mention in the Stoke Mandeville report of any clinician by name as yet. Can the Secretary of State assure me that looking to the future, named individuals will be given the responsibility to prevent this from happening, and if they fail there will be an impact on them, their career, their pension and the like?

Jeremy Hunt: The report clearly says that every trust must have a named director who is responsible for safeguarding. One can draw one’s own conclusions about whether senior management knew or not. The report was unable to find evidence that that was the case, but nor did it say that it was not the case. One comes away with the clear suspicion that senior management may not have wanted to hear the things that they were being told because of Savile’s importance in fund raising and possibly his celebrity status. That is what we must make sure never happens again.

Steven Baker: With Stoke Mandeville serving my constituents, I was reassured to hear that in the present culture these appalling circumstances are not likely to be repeated. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that it is now far more likely that we will see prosecutions within the lifetime of perpetrators rather than this horrific clean-up exercise after a perpetrator’s death?

Jeremy Hunt: I do believe that that is the case. I want to put it on record that Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust, which includes Stoke Mandeville, has made huge progress in turning round and improving its culture. It came out of special measures last year and the staff and management are to be congratulated. His constituents can be confident that, although things are not perfect, huge progress has been made to improve standards.

Tessa Munt: I welcome the report. I support mandatory reporting and I look forward to seeing some serious progress in this respect. Staff and volunteers in all sorts of settings need the ability to report outside their organisation. Where the state is a corporate parent or a carer, or a provider of an extended home setting, it is important that young and vulnerable
	people can find some way of reporting outside. Is the Secretary of State willing to strengthen the role, in conjunction with other Secretaries of State, of the local authority designated officer? Already we know that people in schools and colleges can go to the LADO, but surely that is also appropriate for health and care settings, homes, prisons, the armed forces and anywhere else where there are young and vulnerable people. The benefit is that the LADO is perceived as independent and is someone outside the employer’s strict reporting guidelines. It would give a better chance for victims to be heard, action to be taken and lessons to be learned.

Jeremy Hunt: I am happy to look into that, but hospitals have a responsibility to go to the LADO if there is an incident affecting one of their volunteers or staff. The report makes it clear that they should exercise that responsibility with great diligence, but I am happy to look into the idea that patients should have that access as well.

Matthew Offord: This morning a legal representative of the survivors group said that she had evidence that it had been reported to senior management that Savile had committed offences at Stoke Mandeville. Can the Secretary of State advise whether that opens up the NHS to compensation claims? Can he ensure that any damages claims fall on the Savile estate?

Jeremy Hunt: We have already paid compensation claims. Initially, those claims will be taken from the Savile estate and the money left in the Savile charities, but if those funds prove not to be enough we would pay from
	the NHS Litigation Authority. The report is not able to confirm the extent to which senior management knew or did not know about the allegations, so it is difficult to make progress on the specific points, but that does not stop people being able to make a claim and receive compensation.

Greg Mulholland: I echo the Secretary of State’s praise from those involved in this meticulous investigation and report, but does he acknowledge the concern that the cases of many victims of sexual abuse in other organisations and institutions have not involved a celebrity? I have in my possession a letter from 1993 sent from a Barnardo’s project worker in Leeds to Leeds city council, which blames a constituent of mine for her own rape. Nothing was done to protect her. The abuse continued, and that offence was not reported to the police. Clearly, that would not happen now, but there are still victims whose cases are not being looked at and are not getting justice. What can be done about that?

Jeremy Hunt: A lot of things, and that is what this morning is all about. Mandatory reporting so that the reporting of incidents becomes the norm and not the exception is clearly an area where culture has to change. We have to find the right way to do that. Also, if we get this culture right, we should be able—this must be the ultimate objective of all this work—to stop such incidents happening in the first place. If people had acted earlier on their suspicions about Savile, a lot of victims would have been spared the torment that they subsequently had to endure. The biggest tragedy of all this is that it happened over decades and nothing was done. That is what we need to make sure never happens again.

Future of the BBC

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT COMMITTEE

Select Committee statement

Eleanor Laing: I will briefly remind the House of what is still a fairly new procedure. Mr John Whittingdale will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions, and Mr Whittingdale will respond to these in turn, as is the case for any normal statement. Members can expect to be called only once, and their interventions should be questions that are—

Chris Bryant: Lengthy.

Eleanor Laing: Brief. The hon. Gentleman challenges me, but questions should be brief. Front Benchers may briefly take part in questioning, and we all look forward to that.

John Whittingdale: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to the House the Committee’s report “Future of the BBC”. Our major inquiry began well over a year ago, and I express my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee, our Clerks and our specialist adviser, Mr Ray Gallagher.
	As is well known, the BBC charter expires at the end of 2016. The renewal process provides an opportunity to examine all aspects of the BBC—scale, scope, governance and funding. Since the previous charter renewal, huge changes have taken place to the way in which people watch television. At the time of that renewal, most households had access to only four channels, but since then we have had analogue switch-off, meaning that everyone has access to 40 or more digital channels. Many people also access catch-up television through the iPlayer or some of the new streaming services. The whole media landscape therefore looks very different from how it did 10 years before.
	The Secretary of State has said that it will be for the next Government to consider the future of the BBC and charter renewal—I understand his reasons—but the Committee points out that at the time of the previous review, an independent panel led by Lord Burns conducted a long public consultation before reaching conclusions. We think that this matter is so important that a similar process should take place this time, and there is no reason why that could not be initiated as soon as possible. Either way, I hope that our report will set the agenda for the forthcoming debate.
	There is no question but that the BBC produces many outstanding programmes. Many of our witnesses told us that it is the finest broadcaster in the world. Its reach is 96%, it has an unrivalled reputation for accuracy and impartiality, and it is hugely respected, but any organisation that gets £4 billion of public money should be subject to close scrutiny. There have also been significant failures in recent times: the episodes of executive pay-offs, pensions and severance payments; the loss of £100 million on the digital media initiative; the disastrous acquisition and
	then sale of Lonely Planet; and, of course, the editorial failures regarding programmes about Jimmy Savile and then Lord McAlpine.
	When one looks at the BBC, one must first ask what it is there to do. There are six stated public purposes, which are pretty broad and uncontroversial, although we thought that they could be expanded to take in training and the development of skills, and the need for collaboration and partnership.
	When we looked at the scale of the BBC—what the BBC does—we were unconvinced by the argument that it should continue to try to provide something for everyone. Instead, we say that its principal focus should be on its public service remit and that it should not be afraid to do less when the market is clearly providing a lot of existing content. The BBC has already embarked on some radical thinking, which we welcome. For instance, it has decided to make BBC Three a purely online service, which we generally support. BBC Three has cost something like £1 billion during the decade in which it has been in existence, yet it has not been especially successful at reaching its target audience, so it is right to consider other means of doing so. However, we do not support establishing a BBC One+1 service in its place, especially given that people can already see programmes that they have missed through means such as catch-up services on the iPlayer.
	We welcome moves to remove the in-house production guarantee and to open up all BBC commissioning to competition. We also support allowing a separate BBC production house to compete for commissions from other broadcasters. However, if the BBC production unit is to remain within the BBC, there must be full transparency and no cross-subsidy so that there is fair competition with the independent production sector. We think that the time has come for the charter review to consider the terms of trade. There have been huge changes since those terms were originally put in place, given a large number of acquisitions of independent production companies by American studios, so they need to be looked at again.
	We want more partnership and collaboration with the private sector, and we specifically want more support for local media. They play a vital role in supporting local democracy and ensuring that electors are aware of what happens in council chambers and local courts, but because of economic conditions, a lot of that activity is no longer happening. We think that the BBC could play a role in supporting that, perhaps by using some licence fee payers’ money for local media and by extending the independent production quota to cover local news.
	The two key aspects, however, are governance and funding. On governance, almost every single witness from whom we heard was highly critical of the BBC Trust model. Not only is there an in-built conflict between the two roles of acting as a regulator and arbitrator of complaints, as well as providing the highest level of oversight and management of the BBC, but there is confusion about the trust’s responsibilities. There have been public arguments between the director-general and the chairman of the trust, as well as the management failures to which I referred.
	The Committee is clear that the trust should be abolished and replaced by a unitary board with a non-executive chairman and a majority of non-executive directors. Responsibility for all aspects of the BBC’s
	operation would lie with that board, as is the case for many big organisations. We accept that there would need to be external scrutiny, but we are determined that we should not recreate the BBC Trust with a different name. We suggest that there could be a smaller public service broadcasting commission to scrutinise the overall strategic plan of the BBC and assess performance, as well as to determine public funding and perhaps withhold it, in the event of failure.
	The National Audit Office should be given unfettered access. The Comptroller and Auditor General complained about the difficulties that he still faces and we see no reason why the NAO should not have statutory access. We also believe that Ofcom should have responsibility for all content regulation.
	Funding was always going to be the most controversial aspect of the inquiry. The licence fee is simple and universal, and it arguably maintains arm’s length independence from the Government, but it is regressive, compulsory and expensive to collect, so we considered various alternatives. In the short term, we found that there is no realistic alternative to some form of licence fee or household tax, although we support a number of changes. The arrangements should immediately be amended to cover catch-up services as well as live broadcasting.
	We also see the case for decriminalisation of failure to pay the licence. The penalties that are in place are anachronistic and disproportionate, but we think that decriminalisation may create a risk of much greater evasion, so we see the case for a move towards a household levy, perhaps similar to the German model, which will be simpler to collect and much harder to avoid.
	In the longer term, we think that, as viewing habits change, the licence fee becomes harder to sustain and justify, and that we should at least consider introducing an element of subscription to give viewers the choice of whether they wish to subscribe to all the BBC’s services. There would still need to be public finance for the core services—radio, news, public service programming—but the more premium content would be available as a matter of choice for the viewer through a subscription model. That would need conditional-access technology in the home and it certainly cannot be put in place immediately, but that is the direction in which we believe the Government should look as we begin the process of the charter renewal.
	Again, I thank my colleagues for their assistance and contribution. We had some fierce arguments in the Committee and we did not always obtain agreement on every point, but I hope the report will stand as a working document to allow the extremely important debate on the role of the BBC in our country. That debate is starting and will continue, I have no doubt, until charter renewal at the end of 2016.

Ben Bradshaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we in Britain do broadcasting and the creative industries more generally extremely well, and that politicians tamper with our successful mixed economy, with the BBC at its centre, at their peril? Will he therefore join me in urging all the political parties to make clear in their manifestos their intentions towards the BBC, so that the British public, who value the BBC and its public service ethos, can make an informed choice when they cast their votes on 7 May?

John Whittingdale: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the part he played in preparing the report, which was considerable. I agree with him about the importance of the creative industries, on which the Select Committee has concentrated. I do not entirely agree with his second point, because it is important that there should be a genuine debate and a public consultation. We recommended an independent review panel, and all that would be pre-empted if the political parties set out their conclusions in their manifestos, which are to be published in four or five weeks’ time.

Damian Green: As chair of the all- party BBC group, I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Committee, particularly on their ideas for preserving a universal funding mechanism at a time when the licence fee is becoming technologically more difficult to justify, because it is that universal funding mechanism that has provided the basis for all the good things about the BBC that he and his Committee rightly praised. If universal funding is preserved, as I hope it will be, has he considered the importance of the BBC working more in partnership in future, especially with local newspaper groups, in order to preserve other aspects of the media culture such as local news, which are more fragile than they used to be?

John Whittingdale: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. We made it clear that we see a greater role for partnership arrangements between the BBC and private sector organisations, and I welcome the fact that the director-general has already indicated that that is a direction in which he wants to move. As I suggested earlier, I also agree with my right hon. Friend about the need to find ways of supporting local media, which are under tremendous pressure, and the BBC has a very important role to play in that.

Michael Weir: I was slightly concerned by what the hon. Gentleman said about a household levy to replace the licence fee. Whatever the difficulties associated with the licence fee, there are many people who do not have a television licence or, for various reasons, do not want to watch the BBC. If we go down the household levy route, there is a real danger that we will be creating a BBC poll tax.

John Whittingdale: The household levy, which would be a short-term measure to deal with the problem of evasion, is just a small change to the way of collecting the licence fee. The licence fee is essentially a household levy, but there is quite a high evasion rate which could increase following decriminalisation. The one area where the hon. Gentleman is correct is that there are some people who say that they never watch the BBC, never listen to BBC radio and never go online to access BBC services, so they do not pay the licence fee. Since 96% of the population have BBC television and a lot more have BBC radio, the number we are talking about is very, very small. There is arguably a case for saying that the public service content that the BBC provides is good for society and for the nation and it is right that everybody should contribute towards that.

Angie Bray: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his chairmanship of our Committee and the publication of the report. I am
	delighted to see that it recognises the inexorable move towards subscription television. I believe that people should pay for what they want to watch, rather than for what they do not watch, but may I express my reservations about some kind of household levy? I am uneasy about creating new taxes, which are easier to create than to abolish. Does my hon. Friend concede that there is some danger that that in itself could endanger the independence of the BBC and make it more dependent on politicians?

John Whittingdale: I do not want to overstate the household levy because it is essentially the licence fee by a different name. The reason that it is attached to a household is in order to make it easier to collect than the existing rather draconian process, which suffers from an evasion rate that could increase with decriminalisation. On the setting of the level, the report makes it clear that we see a role for the new public service broadcasting commission in assessing the amount needed to provide the services that the BBC is there to produce, and I do not think there is a greater danger of political interference or Government involvement than there is already under the process of setting the licence fee.

Paul Farrelly: This is the first time, sadly, that I have voted against a report in my 10 years on the Committee, and that was only because I disagree strongly with the proposed replacement for the BBC Trust. The preference of the Chair and the majority in the report is for an Ofbeeb, less involved up front, more of an after-the-fact regulator, but does the Chair agree that another possible model could be a strong ex ante regulator, as proposed by Lord Burns and reflected in my amendments printed at the back of the report? In the words of David Liddiment, a founding member of the trust, the BBC is simply too big and important a beast for light-touch regulation.

John Whittingdale: I share the hon. Gentleman’s sadness that he was unable to support us. It was interesting that three of my colleagues felt unable to support the final conclusions in our report, but I think it fair to say that each of them did so for entirely different reasons—it was not necessarily a meeting of minds. On the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, there is going to be a lot of argument about the different models, and we saw considerable attraction in the original proposals made by Lord Burns. Most—I suspect all—of us thought it a pity that the previous Government did not adopt the Burns model, rather than create the rather unsatisfactory BBC Trust. The BBC Trust has failed and we do not want to create a body that is basically another BBC Trust. His idea of the ex ante regulator is in danger of falling into that trap; personally I think there needs to be a very clear responsibility for the oversight and running of the BBC, and a single unitary board is the best way of achieving that.

Philip Davies: I commend my hon. Friend as an outstanding Chairman of a Select Committee and a perfect illustration of why the two-term rule for Select Committee Chairmen should be scrapped immediately. He will be aware that I was in a minority
	of one in calling for the licence fee to be replaced by subscription. Given the number of channels that are now available, those of us who believe in freedom of choice must surely believe that people who want to watch the BBC should be able to do so and pay for it, and those who do not want to watch the BBC should not have to pay for it and should be able to exercise that choice too. Has not the time come for that? If the licence fee represents such wonderful value for money, as the BBC tells us, surely it has nothing to fear from moving to a subscription model, because presumably everyone will be queuing round the corner to buy their subscription.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has always acted as my Thatcherite conscience on the Committee, and I have a lot of sympathy with what he has just said. However, I will make two observations. First, we are not yet able to move to a subscription model because that would require big changes, such as the installation of conditional access in every household. Secondly, I think hat there will always be some content that should be provided and publicly financed, because there are certain things that might not be viable on a subscription basis but are nevertheless important for the public good. I therefore think that there will always be an element of public finance, but I can certainly see the attraction of moving in the direction of having a growing proportion of content paid for by subscription.

Anne Begg: The BBC is different, and that is why it should be funded differently, as I think most people accept. It has always stuck me that there are actually more negatives than positives to going down the subscription route, compared with the present licence fee arrangements. Did the Committee find that? What problems did it identify with moving to a subscription system?

John Whittingdale: We took evidence from many people, and certainly a number of our witnesses were not in favour of a subscription model. I think that their argument can best be summed up in the phrase “paying more and getting less”. That is the BBC’s argument, but I am not convinced. I agree that the BBC produces outstanding programmes that are extremely popular. Indeed, I tend to sympathise with the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the vast majority of people would choose to go on paying in order to receive them. I do not think there would be a massive drop, but it is an important principle that, where possible, people should be able to choose whether to pay.

John Leech: We disagree with the long-term future of the licence fee and whether non-payment of the licence fee should be decriminalised. Does the Chair of the Committee accept that any moves to decriminalise non-payment before 2017 would be contrary to the agreement reached with the BBC in 2010, when it accepted the licence fee freeze in return for guaranteed funding? Given that the Committee found clear evidence that decriminalisation would lead to more evasion and therefore less money for the BBC, surely that contradicts the agreement reached in 2010.

John Whittingdale: As my hon. Friend knows, the Committee has concerns about the consequences of decriminalisation, which is why we said that other measures would be needed to try to prevent an increase in evasion. The matter is now subject to consultation. It should certainly be part of the charter renewal process, and I think it probably will be. It will probably be for the next Government to decide whether to wait until the end of 2016 before decriminalising.

Paul Flynn: Does the report recognise the unique character of the BBC, which has made a priceless contribution to Welsh culture and language and given us the most trusted news service because of its duty of balance, which must greatly irritate the Daily Mail and the Daily Express? Can we take it that the report is not influenced by the scurrilous accusation made against the hon. Gentleman in a tabloid newspaper when he was first appointed to work for Margaret Thatcher, in which he was described as “Maggie’s Toy Boy”?

John Whittingdale: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is correct; it was a very long time ago and I had rather hoped that people had forgotten that particular headline. I did not mention this in my statement, but of course we recognise the BBC’s important role not only in providing BBC Wales and Welsh programming, but in supporting S4C, which was a creation of the Conservative Government. That is very important. The BBC’s reputation for accurate news reporting is absolutely essential, and no member of the Committee would ever want to see that put in jeopardy.

Bob Neill: Does my hon. Friend recognise that one advantage of decriminalisation is that it would be welcomed by many magistrates and their staff, because it would stop their work loads being clogged up with cases that are often uncontested and result in non-appearances, which wastes time and money? On the other hand, in relation to the household levy, does he recognise the concern among local authorities about one idea that was posited, which is that it might be collected using their resources, perhaps along with the council tax bill? Does he agree that it would be unfair to force hard-working local authorities that have kept council tax down to become the vehicle for passing on a levy over which they have no control?

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for both points. The collection mechanism currently costs about £100 million. If we moved to a different system, perhaps by attaching it to council tax, we could probably provide an incentive to councils to take on that responsibility and still save money. His point about magistrates courts is entirely right, as there are about 150,000 convictions every year for failure to have a licence, and that clogs up the courts. It is one of the many reasons why there is a strong case for decriminalisation.

Steve Rotheram: I find myself in the invidious position of agreeing with something the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said, which was that the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) should be able to stand to be Chair of the Committee again—everything else he said was barmy. He actually argued that we should be looking at a voluntary subscription
	model. I am sure that would work well, because everyone likes paying taxes. The BBC would not exist in its current form under his proposal. We visited several European cities and looked at their models. Despite what has been said from those on the Government Benches, the public service broadcasters in Europe that have moved to a hypothecated tax system, such as the household levy, actually saw the amount of revenue they received increase. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that the model that we have suggested would strike a balance and give some time for a review of what might be better for taking the BBC into the next part of the 21st century?

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has just illustrated that—I think this is true of all Select Committees—although there might be strong disagreements within the Committee, they are conducted on a very friendly basis. I entirely agree that we were impressed by the model that has been adopted by Germany. Rather to Germany’s surprise, it has led to an increase in revenue, because the previous system had an even higher level of evasion than it had realised.

Matthew Offord: I worked at the BBC for nine years. In 2007 I moved from news production to the strategy side and tasked myself with asking whether the licence fee was sustainable in the digital age. I think the report gives me the answer—it is not. I found that the biggest roadblock to any kind of reform is the BBC itself, because there is a culture of dependency and entitlement to the licence fee that simply will not go away.

John Whittingdale: I have some sympathy with those comments. We found it slightly odd that the BBC officials who appeared before the Committee said that they had an open mind about the governance structure and the scope and scale, but that one thing they were absolutely certain about was that the licence fee had to stay. There is resistance, and perhaps that is reflected in the comments we have already heard from the BBC. My hon. Friend draws on his experience of working at the BBC, so I thank him for his support for what we have said.

Philip Hollobone: May I commend my hon. Friend for being an exemplary Select Committee Chair and for his superb report? The report confirms the power of BBC news. It states:
	“Last year 82% of UK adults consumed BBC News… across television, radio and online.”
	Given the power of the BBC’s news coverage, is it not even more important that the trust, or whatever the successor body is, enforces the BBC’s own guidelines on fair news coverage, particularly in relation to the BBC’s 2005 Wilson report, which found that the BBC needed to do far more to represent accurately the range of opinions on this country’s membership of the European Union and that the BBC’s news coverage was far too pro-European?

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he allows me to talk about another very important point made in the report. At the moment, complaints about accuracy and impartiality are dealt with by the BBC Trust, and I think that there is dissatisfaction with the fact that the BBC is judging itself. We have made it clear that we think that should change and that, with
	the abolition of the trust, responsibility for all content regulation, including complaints about accuracy and impartiality, should go to Ofcom. It already carried out that function for Channel 4, and we see no reason why it could not also do so for the BBC.

Sarah Wollaston: Following the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) about a diversity of views, does my hon. Friend the Chair of the Committee agree that too much of our news coverage has an entirely metropolitan focus? Will he elaborate further on what the report said about how we can encourage more resourcing for, and better coverage of, views from rural parts of Britain?

John Whittingdale: We did look at the slightly London-centric nature of the BBC, and we welcomed the move to MediaCityUK in Salford and the provision of resources. We also expressed the hope that more would be done particularly in relation to the other nations. Northern Ireland made a quite strong case to us that it was poorly treated by the BBC. The question of covering rural issues—like my hon. Friend, I represent a rural constituency—is more challenging. I shall certainly continue to put it to the BBC, because sometimes—my hon. Friend is absolutely correct—these areas do not get the prominence they deserve.

Chris Bryant: At the risk of ruining the hon. Gentleman’s reputation as Thatcher’s gimp—I mean toy boy—may I enormously commend him for the work he has done as Committee Chair for the past 10 years? Everyone in the House, whether they have disagreed with him or agreed with him, is grateful to him for that work. He has been an exemplary Chair of the Committee. I put that on record on behalf of my hon. Friends.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that changes in technology mean that there are significant new challenges for the BBC, which does of course
	remain one of the most loved and respected organisations in this country and around the world. That is why we believe that the licence fee will, at least for the short term, remain the best means of funding the BBC for the foreseeable future, and that it would be a mistake to undermine it without putting in place a viable alternative.
	May I take the hon. Gentleman up on one point? The report says:
	“We challenge the claim that the BBC needs to provide ‘something for everyone’.”
	I do not want the BBC to be subject to a market failure argument only, because surely if everyone is paying for it, including my constituents, everyone should get something from it.

John Whittingdale: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his extremely kind remarks. I have to say that I am blushing throughout most of this session.
	The hon. Gentleman’s point goes to the heart of the debate. I think the argument about providing something for everyone becomes weaker, given the huge increase in choice available elsewhere through the market. When we now have such a large number of channels for specific genres, the BBC should at least say to itself, “Is there really any need for us still to be in this area when there is already so much provision?” That does not necessarily mean that it should retreat into a ghetto—some have expressed that fear—but that it should take account of the huge proliferation of choice and concentrate its resources on the areas that have been poorly served by the market.

Eleanor Laing: It is perhaps inevitable, on a subject such as this, that my initial exhortation to brevity has been completely and utterly ignored. I have allowed the statement to run over time because I recognised that the feeling of the House was that there were many subjects to be dealt with—and the Chairman of the Committee has dealt with them more than adequately.

Backbench Business
	 — 
	Equitable Life

Bob Blackman: I beg to move,
	That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.
	In the run-up to the 2010 general election, the Conservative party discouraged candidates from signing any pledges, with one or two notable exceptions, the most notable being that of seeking justice for Equitable Life policyholders. Having done some research, I was very proud and pleased to sign that pledge. After I was successfully elected, I was immediately elevated to become co-chairman of the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders. I am pleased to be able to report that we now have more than 200 members. That demonstrates what an important issue this is for people in this House and beyond.
	It is important that we look at what is different about what Equitable Life policyholders compared with those in other such schemes. With the advent of private pensions and the encouragement of individuals to save for their future retirement, Equitable Life developed an almost Ponzi-like scheme whereby its representatives went out and sold policies for which they promised bonuses and pensions that were beyond belief, and people were convinced to sign up for them. When that was reported to the regulator and the Treasury, they took no action whatsoever. This was all very well while money was coming into the pot, but eventually the amount coming in would be less than that going out, and therefore the scheme would collapse. The scheme therefore became too big to fail, because had it failed, the Government of the day, of whichever party, would have had to pick up the full cost of compensation to the policyholders.
	The whole scandal was covered up during the scheme’s entire period of 20 years. A position was reached of a cosy relationship between the company, the regulator and the Government whereby they would not unveil the situation. The Equitable Members Action Group had to drag the Government through the courts. Eventually, in 2004, we had the publication of the Penrose report, which made recommendations about the position of Equitable Life. That was not good enough, because it did not do anything to compensate the people who had suffered. Then the parliamentary ombudsman made clear recommendations that the policyholders needed to be moved from the position where they had suffered a relative loss back to the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred. That was very important. Equally, the ombudsman accepted that it would be appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any payment of compensation.
	I am delighted that almost the first legislative step by the coalition Government was to put in place a scheme to compensate the individuals who had suffered a relative loss. We had argued in this Chamber for justice for those policyholders. There are various types of policyholders who have received different types of compensation. The first—

Ian Paisley Jnr: rose—

Andrew Mitchell: rose—

Bob Blackman: May I specify the types first, and then I will take interventions?
	The first set of policyholders were those who took out their policies and had an annuity in place pre-1 September 1992. They were specifically excluded from the compensation scheme. I will come on to what happened to them subsequently. Secondly, there were the with-profits annuitants, who were given compensation of 100% of their relative loss—quite right too. Then there were the normal policyholders, who received an element of compensation. Unfortunately, when the legislation was set up, the public finances were in a scandalous state, and there was little money to allocate. I am delighted that the Treasury nevertheless chose to allocate sufficient funding to provide some £1.5 billion in compensation. There was £620 million to compensate the 37,000 with-profits annuitants, but, with the contingency fund of £100 million that was put in place, plus the costs of administering the scheme, that left only some £775 million to be spread between the 945,000 other policyholders, who therefore got only 22.4% of the compensation that they were due. As a result, those individuals have not been put back into the position that they should have been in had they not suffered the relative loss.

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good and most important speech. I agree that the coalition Government deserve considerable credit for having tackled this early on in their term in office. Since, sadly, I cannot be here for the Minister’s speech, will my hon. Friend pursue the issue of the speed at which these payments are being made? Many of my constituents have had to wait a considerable length of time. I would be most grateful for his and the Minister’s reassurance that everything is being done to make these payments as rapidly as possible.

Bob Blackman: It is fair to say that the all-party group and EMAG have been on the backs of the Treasury Ministers responsible. The current Minister is in her place. Her predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), was a very helpful in making sure that the scheme was speeded up and that people got the compensation due to them. Most importantly, he decided that he would not close the scheme, which could have been done under the legislation, until we had traced every one of the policyholders due for compensation.

Philip Davies: May I commend my hon. Friend on all his work on this issue over several years? Is not the crucial point in the motion that, with the public finances improving, the compensation already paid should not be considered the last word on the matter, and there should be more room to give proper
	compensation to people who need it? As I am sitting next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), may I ask whether my hon. Friend understands the frustration of many people that the Government seem to have plenty of money to spray on things such as overseas aid and aid to India, which might be better spent on such compensation to people in this country?

Bob Blackman: The clear issue is that when the assessment was made of the amount of compensation due to policyholders—this point is crucial—it was decided that £4.3 billion should be paid in compensation. Clearly, £1.5 billion has been allocated, although it has not all been spent, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned, meaning that a compensation bill of £2.8 billion is still outstanding.
	The Prime Minister quite rightly said at the Conservative party conference that as the economy recovers and we fix this country’s problems, tax rates will come down, but I would say that there is a still a bill to be paid to the people who saved for their retirement. Therefore, as the economy recovers and the public purse allows, we should compensate policyholders who have suffered a relative loss, as we committed to do at the last general election.

Edward Garnier: May I congratulate my hon. Friend and the co-sponsors of the motion on bringing this matter before the House? I am a past and, I think, a continuing policyholder of Equitable Life; given yesterday’s debate, I suppose that is a matter of deep interest to the world. I am concerned that the amount of compensation to be paid to individual policyholders is relatively small. Does my hon. Gentleman agree that there is now a duty on the Government to get rid of these fairly small claims as quickly as possible? Many of my affected constituents are in their 70s and 80s, and they need satisfaction as soon as possible.

Bob Blackman: I completely concur with my hon. and learned Friend.
	I should say that the Chancellor made a key and very brave move to compensate the pre-1992 trapped annuitants with a one-off payment of £5,000, which was doubled to £10,000 for those on pension credit. That was very welcome, but we are talking about the most vulnerable people trapped by the scheme, and my view is that they should receive total compensation. The estimate for total compensation for that element alone is £115 million, which I consider a drop in the ocean compared with the total pension bill due.

Cheryl Gillan: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the motion before the House? As we are rapidly approaching that time in the political cycle called the Budget, I suggest that this is a golden opportunity for our Treasury team and the coalition Government to show that they have a big heart and meet the demands we are all making on behalf of our oldest and most vulnerable constituents?

Bob Blackman: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is listening, but she will clearly not announce the Budget measures today. After this debate, however, I will seek a clear commitment from the political
	parties about what they will do if elected to government on 7 May. Although it would be welcome if the Chancellor stood up at the Dispatch Box and agreed a full compensation package, the key issue is that if he cannot do so in this Budget, Members and people outside the House will want to know what the political parties would do to compensate those who have suffered.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting this matter on to the Floor of the House. He is in danger of being canonised by the many thousands of people in Northern Ireland who are watching this debate closely because of how unfairly they have been affected. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench are listening to the points that Members have raised.
	There have been announcements this week about the bonuses to be paid to bankers in banks controlled by the public purse, and some bankers have taken the personal decision to refuse bonuses if they so wish. At least they have the choice. The people who have suffered under Equitable Life have not got a choice. I hope that Treasury Ministers are listening, and recognise that if they want the future support of Opposition Members, they should address this issue before the end of this term.

Bob Blackman: I will call the hon. Gentleman my honourable Friend because he has been stalwart in defending the rights of the people of Northern Ireland who have suffered in this scheme.
	The key point is that, according to the published figures, the Treasury had a surplus of £8.8 billion in January, which was remarkable given that we were expecting £6.5 billion. Some proportion of the additional £2 billion surplus could be put towards compensation for policyholders who have suffered.

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend rightly mentions the surplus in January. We are coming to the end of the financial year, and many Departments may have an underspend in their allocated budgets. Would it not be a good idea to divert some of that underspend to the victims of Equitable Life?

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. The Chancellor will be listening to such rumours, and will no doubt want to hoover up that money to dispense for appropriate good causes, of which this is clearly one.

Jennifer Willott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people have been pushed into an extremely difficult position, and that some of them are extremely close to poverty as a result of the amount they have lost? In many cases, they are not at an age at which there is anything they can do to replace the funds they have lost. They face a very uncertain future, as they have for many years, but there is absolutely nothing they can do to make a difference.

Bob Blackman: I do not normally agree with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), but he has said:
	“They were not like the people who put their savings into outfits offering dubious and extraordinary returns, such as those who decided to chance their savings with the Icelandic banks.
	The Equitable policyholders are in their current position through absolutely no fault of their own.”—[ Official Report , 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 781.]
	He went on to say that those at fault were Equitable Life, the Government and the regulator.

Geoffrey Robinson: Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on keeping this very important issue live. He must be aware that there will never be a right time in the Government finances to put this matter right. The Treasury may have made a small budgetary surplus over and above what it expected in January, but the fact is that the Treasury debt is still huge. It is as simple as that.
	The only way round this problem is to say that there will never be a financially right time, only a morally right time. That time is now, given the long lag, which has been characterised by denials and evasions. They also occurred in the contaminated blood scandal, which was perhaps even worse. The only way to deal with this is to pay the £115 million that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, and to have a clear statement about future year-by-year reductions in the outstanding £2.8 billion, which the Equitable Life policyholders have wholly earned and wholly deserve. They should be awarded the whole amount, because that is the only way in which this dreadful ill can be rectified.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is a great shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) was almost the sole individual on the Labour Benches during the Labour Government who promoted a compensation scheme. I commend him for his efforts to get his Government to introduce one. I wish that other Labour Members had promoted such schemes.

Paul Flynn: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Blackman: I will make a couple of points and then give way for the final time.
	We are clear about what we want the Government to do. Irrespective of which political party wins the general election, we want full compensation for the pre-1992 trapped annuitants. As I have said, it would cost £115 million to compensate those individuals. Those are the most vulnerable individuals because they retired a long time ago and many of them are very frail. It would cost a relatively small amount of public money to give them proper compensation. I am afraid that the longer we delay, the fewer of them will be around, because they are dying off almost daily.
	Secondly, as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) said, we should commit to a graduated full compensation package so that the policy holders are compensated as the public finances continue to recover. Individuals who took out pension policies some time ago are not necessarily reaching retirement age. Topping up their pensions over four or five years would therefore enable them to retire in the way that they expected.

Paul Flynn: May I state that I have a close financial interest in this matter? I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was discussed at great length by the Public
	Administration Committee in the last Parliament. Does he have a formula, which is what we were looking for, that suggests who is responsible for losses made? Can we have a scheme that is consistent for all pension schemes that get in trouble, such as the Allied Steel and Wire scheme, which has still not been resolved? If he has such a formula, perhaps it could be agreed to between the parties now, so that what is national responsibility, personal responsibility and company responsibility is accepted and we have a resilient formula that can be used for Equitable Life, Allied Steel and Wire and all those that go broke in the future.

Bob Blackman: I note the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The key point is that the Equitable Life policy holders have been through the courts and through the parliamentary ombudsman, and the matter has been found in their favour. Maladministration clearly took place and a key decision was taken to put those policy holders back into the position that they would have been in had that maladministration not taken place. Clearly, other pension schemes are in trouble. There are a lot of pension schemes in trouble because the previous Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, raided private pension funds and thought that that was a golden opportunity. We must take that into account. That is not the case with Equitable Life policy holders, which makes this a different matter. We have to be careful about broadening out this subject to other pension schemes.

Anne Begg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that expectations have been raised and promises have been made? All that these people did was to invest in what they thought was a trusted company. They have done nothing wrong and they cannot for the life of them understand why it is taking so long to settle the matter.

Bob Blackman: These people have battled and struggled through the courts and through a long process to get justice. There are many of us, certainly on the Government Benches but also on the Opposition Benches, who say that all these people did was invest for the future and trust what they were told. They took a risk to a certain extent that the market would be appropriate, but they did not expect the level of maladministration that took place or the way in which they would be treated.

Alan Haselhurst: My hon. Friend has made an eloquent case. He referred to the great disappointment that is felt by so many people who believe that they deserve compensation for what happened. He has not mentioned this, but does he agree that there is also considerable anger among people who feel let down? Is it not somewhat ironic and very uncomfortable that the Government who have started to do something about it are taking so much of the blame?

Bob Blackman: I have commended the Government for the action that they have taken to set up the scheme. At the time of the legislation, we tabled a cross-party amendment to ensure that the trapped pre-1992 annuitants would be compensated, but the Government resisted it. I am delighted that the Government saw sense after the lobbying that took place and provided a degree of
	compensation. The Government should be commended for ensuring that there is a compensation scheme. However, we have an independent assessment of the total amount of compensation that is due—it was not done by EMAG or by the Government, but is independent—and £2.8 billion is still due.

Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is being extraordinarily generous in giving way. There is a unanimous feeling in the House that justice needs to be done for these people. We know how much is outstanding and there is a big difference between what people are due under the existing compensation scheme and what they are actually due. Surely what we need is not a five-year plan to pay the money back, but a one-off payment that is made as soon as possible. Many of these people will die before they get their just reward.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has taken a lot of interventions and I have allowed him a lot more time than is normally the case in this sort of debate. I also appreciate that there will be further interventions and I am not suggesting that he concludes his speech immediately. However, I make a plea for very short interventions, because people who say that they are not going to make a speech, but that they would like to intervene, take up the time of people who sit here all afternoon with patience and politeness, waiting to make a speech. I will not be tolerant of long interventions, but I am tolerant of the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous in taking so many interventions.

Bob Blackman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to draw my remarks to a close after that last intervention.
	The issue before us is one of justice and fairness. Everyone believes in ensuring that the policyholders receive proper compensation for the injustice that they have suffered. These are people who did the right thing: they invested for their future. They expected a reasonable return on their investment and to be protected by the regulator and the Treasury. The fact is that they were badly let down.
	This is the opportunity for all three major political parties and the smaller parties to give a commitment on what they would do if they were elected as the Government on 7 May for the 945,000 people out there who are still waiting for 77.6% of the compensation that they are due and for the trapped pre-1992 annuitants who deserve full compensation, which at £115 million would be a drop in the ocean, and who are the frailest in our society. If parties give them that commitment, they will give them their votes; if parties deny them that commitment, they may withdraw their votes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Given the interest in this debate and the short time available, I shall impose a time limit on Back-Bench speeches of eight minutes. That is quite a long time limit and I make a further plea for short interventions, if there must be any.

Fabian Hamilton: It is a privilege to have secured the debate with my co-chair of the all-party group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).
	I am sad that after so many years of debating this issue, we are once again back in the Chamber talking about the continuing losses suffered by hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders. As has been said, they invested in the world’s oldest life assurance company in the belief that they would be able to have a comfortable old age. Instead, after a lifetime of saving, many of them find themselves destitute, and they are certainly much poorer through no fault of their own. How have we arrived at that point, 15 years after Equitable Life closed its doors to new investors and five years after the current Government promised to ensure that losses incurred by Equitable policyholders would be compensated? If Members permit me, I will go back over some of the history of this sorry tale, to give the House and the public some answers.
	My first involvement in the Equitable saga was to speak in an Adjournment debate that I secured in Westminster Hall on 24 June 2009. In that debate, I spoke about the serious issues facing all our constituents since the crash of Equitable Life, following its inability to meet its obligations and the promises that it had made to investors over the decades.

Mark Lazarowicz: I may have been present at that debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his role in leading the campaign with other hon. Members. Like me and other Members, he will have had the experience of trying to update constituents on the issue but getting back a reply saying, “Unfortunately, my father”—or wife, or husband—“has now died”. That illustrates how important it is to take action now. Although I would like to hear pledges for after the election, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, we also need action now, ideally in the Budget. After an election, it takes time for things to happen. People need payment and good compensation—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We must have short interventions. Long interventions are simply not fair, because everybody must have a chance to speak on behalf of their constituents. Members must be polite to each other and make short interventions.

Fabian Hamilton: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).
	Equitable Life was established in 1762 and started selling pensions as early as 1913, but it was not until 1957 that the society started selling its now infamous guaranteed annuity rate pensions, which promised a clear and unambiguous return on capital invested. That carried on until 1988, when it realised that its rates were so good and so far ahead of the rest of the market that they were totally unsustainable. In December 2000, Equitable Life was forced to close to new business, but by that time it had more than 1.5 million members.
	In July 2008, as the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, the parliamentary ombudsman published her first report on Equitable, entitled “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”. On 11 December that year, the Public Administration Committee produced a report entitled “Justice delayed”, in which it stated:
	“Over the last eight years many of those members and their families have suffered great anxiety as policy values were cut and pension payments reduced. Many are no longer alive, and will be unable to benefit personally from any compensation. We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long.”
	That is already seven years ago.
	On 5 May 2009, Ann Abraham, the parliamentary ombudsman, published a second report, “Injustice unremedied: the Government’s response on Equitable Life”, in which she stated:
	“I was deeply disappointed that the Government chose to reject many of the findings that I had made, when I was acting independently on behalf of Parliament and after a detailed and exhaustive investigation.”
	There was certainly no shortage of reports, just a shortage of justice for those who, through no fault of their own, had suffered huge losses in their life savings, which they had accrued over many years of hard work.
	How could Equitable Life have maintained a rate of return and a guaranteed annuity rate way beyond any competitor in the market? Ann Abraham addressed that question in her initial report of 2008, which took four years to complete. Her answers went to the heart of the anger expressed by investors through the Equitable Members Action Group. At the core of the problem was the fact that Equitable Life simply could not meet the obligations that it had made, because it had no provision for guarantees against low interest rates on policies issued before 1988. It therefore declared bonuses out of all proportion to its profits and assets.
	Following a ruling of the House of Lords in 2000, the society stopped taking new business in December of that year, which effectively spelled the end for Equitable. More than 1 million policyholders then found that they faced cuts in their bonuses and annuities, which caused a huge loss of the income on which many small investors had totally depended. After all, the average investment for the 500,000 individual policyholders was just £45,000, which, according to EMAG, would have yielded no more than £300 a month even at its height.
	In its December 2008 report, one of the Public Administration Committee’s many recommendations stated:
	“We…strongly support the Ombudsman’s recommendation for the creation of a compensation scheme to pay for the loss that has been suffered by Equitable Life’s members as a result of maladministration.”

Ian Murray: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the co-chair of the all-party group, for his wonderful speech and for all the work that he has done. One of the people who lost out was Leonard Stuckey, in my constituency, who has run the EMAG group in Edinburgh South. Does my hon. Friend think that 22.4p in the pound is the right level of compensation, given what the parliamentary report that he has just mentioned said?

Fabian Hamilton: I thank my hon. Friend. There are hundreds of thousands of people like his constituent. We all have constituents who have suffered losses, for whom 22.4p in the pound is a start but, as many Members have said, simply not enough. I will say something about that in my remaining time.

Zac Goldsmith: The hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), is making a powerful speech. This is an issue of basic justice, but given the parliamentary cycle, it is inevitably also a political issue. I support my hon. Friend’s suggestion that all political parties put on record before the election their position on compensation, so that those caught up in the scandal know what impact their votes might have on this sorry saga.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree. With the election coming up, we need to put a clear choice to the electors and to the hundreds of thousands of pensioners and policyholders who have suffered through the collapse of Equitable to ensure that they know where we all stand as political parties and as individuals. I am not the only Labour Member who has stood up for the rights of Equitable members—I believe that more than 40 Labour Members are members of EMAG, and many more believe that justice should be served.
	The Public Administration Committee’s report of 2008 went on to state:
	“Where regulators have been shown to fail so thoroughly, compensation should be a duty, not a matter of choice.”
	Unfortunately, despite pleas from many Labour Members, the then Labour Government failed to introduce any ex gratia compensation scheme and refused to follow the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendations. Reacting to the Government’s lack of response to the ombudsman’s report, the then Conservative Opposition stated their determination to introduce the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill early in the new Parliament following the 2010 general election. That Bill offered 100% compensation to all with-profits annuitants who had taken out their annuities after 1 September 1992, and 22.4% compensation to every other policyholder. Many right hon. and hon. Members of all parties felt that that was inherently unfair, as that date was somewhat arbitrary and, as has been mentioned, the relatively small group of with-profits annuitants from before that date was the oldest and most vulnerable group. Many of them would not even live to enjoy the compensation or the £5,000 ex gratia payment to that group that the Chancellor announced recently.
	I tabled an amendment to the Bill, which read:
	“Payments authorised by the Treasury under this section to with-profits annuitants shall be made without regard to the date on which such policies were taken out.”
	The debate on the amendment took just over two hours and was lost, by 76 votes in favour to 301 against, but it set out strongly the case for the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants.
	The Bill received Royal Assent early in 2011, and the compensation scheme was set in motion. At first it was slow, but it began to pick up over subsequent years. As of 31 January this year, more than £1 billion has been paid to 896,367 policyholders, although more than 142,000 policyholders still have to be paid but cannot
	be traced. Some 37,764 post-1992 with-profits annuitants, or their estates, have been issued payments by the scheme, and those initial and subsequent payments total £271.4 million.
	In conclusion, I must give credit to this Government for having introduced a compensation scheme from which the majority of Equitable policyholders have received 22.4p in the pound—a lot better than nothing. However, when we examine the compensation paid to Icesave investors, for example, following the collapse of the Icelandic banks in 2008, for which every investor received up to £50,000 of their losses in full, the Equitable scheme looks rather less generous.
	Equitable policyholders have been patient. They understand that the recession meant austerity and that there was a huge shortage of money available for many parts of government and the state. What they cannot understand, however, is why, as the economy grows, they are denied any further payments against their very real losses. I have heard, as have all Members of the House, heartbreaking stories from individuals, some of whom have lost everything including their homes, all because of Equitable’s failure and the company’s “catastrophic” regulation.
	As I have said in previous speeches on Equitable Life in the House, this is fundamentally a moral issue. When the Government are supposed to protect the life savings of individuals who have been encouraged to provide for themselves—as was the case with Equitable—they have a duty to ensure that losses incurred, such as those at Equitable, are adequately compensated. In my view that obligation should come above pet projects such as High Speed 2 and Trident renewal, or else the whole fabric of trust in the state will be damaged—I believe that that is exactly that has happened in this case. We have a moral duty and should not be afraid to carry it out.

Nick Herbert: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate. I was pleased to support his application for a debate in Back-Bench time because of the importance of this issue to a large number of my constituents who, as Equitable Life policyholders, have suffered loss. They remain gravely concerned that, although in many cases they have been partially compensated for their loss, they have not been fully compensated or compensated at a level that they believe to be just. It is important to restate, as many hon. Members have done, that these are responsible individuals who invested and saved in good faith and with a reasonable expectation of a fair return. They have not in any sense behaved irresponsibly, and did not seek to make investment decisions that had an expectation of an element of risk. They found themselves suffering significant losses, many of which have resulted in hardship, through no fault of their own.
	I wish to raise two points in addition to the excellent points raised by my hon. Friend and others. First is the issue of accountability. Regulatory failure was identified in the ombudsman’s report, and that single fact informs us all in this debate that there was maladministration. How is that regulatory failure to be dealt with, and how will future regulatory failure be prevented, if those who
	are responsible for that failure—ultimately in this case, the Government of the day—can evade liability for that failure? This is, of course, a matter of justice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said, but it is also a matter of good governance and accountability, because when institutions for which the Government are responsible fail, the Government must accept responsibility.
	The Government were, of course, obliged to step in when bailing out other financial institutions, because a risk to the economy would have arisen had they not done so. Nevertheless, for individual policyholders of Equitable Life there seems to be an unfairness, because while those who may have been depositors or shareholders in banks will receive compensation and redress, those who have saved in good faith but relied on the effective regulation of the vehicle in which they were investing are not receiving full compensation, and that cannot be right.
	My second point is about reasonable expectation. It is not as if these policyholders have been told that they do not have a case; it is not as if we are coming to the House to plead, once again, on the issue of principle. The issue of principle has been addressed and settled. The ombudsman has said that there was maladministration, and the Government have accepted the issue of principle because of the level of compensation they provided.
	We have the ombudsman’s report and the Conservative party manifesto that pledged compensation. I recognise that this Government set up the compensation scheme, and that they had to address the fiscal environment responsibly. Nevertheless, it remains a continuing source of concern that such a small proportion of many of my constituents’ losses have been addressed, and that they have complete uncertainty about whether there will be further compensation in future. Nobody turns around to my constituents and says, “We will not do this any more”, and they are left with the uncomfortable sense that it would be very convenient if they simply went away or, in many cases, actually died. Thousands of policyholders have died in the wait for compensation, and we have no finality to the situation. Given the reasonable expectation that was set up, the manifesto promise and the ombudsman’s report, it is entirely reasonable to ask on behalf of our constituents whether we can have a timetabled scheme to say, “We will bring closure to this matter.”
	I am happy to stand up and say that that closure may not be for 100% of the losses accrued. Many of my constituents might disagree with that, but we must have regard to the fact that there is a continuing deficit and will be for the next three years, and that there are other spending priorities. Nevertheless, it seems that compensation of only 22%, and the ongoing uncertainty of whether there will be any further compensation at all, is deeply unsatisfactory.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent who e-mailed me and stated:
	“If we were to receive this money it would not be lost. I am sure it would soon find its way into the economy at large and would not languish in savings accounts because we’ve done the saving already!”?

Nick Herbert: My right hon. Friend’s constituent makes a good point and it is true that the compensation that the banks have had to pay, for example in relation
	to mis-selling payment protection insurance, has had a beneficial effect on the economy by putting cash into people’s hands, but that is by the bye. As many have said, this is a matter of justice, but also of accountability and good governance. We cannot allow a situation where the regulation of an institution such as Equitable Life fails and no one will step up to the plate and say, “We accept responsibility for that failure” even though thousands of people have been hurt by it. That is the long and short of the story. The Government have a duty. They had to balance the interests of taxpayers fairly, but there is a strong feeling in the House, and among many of my constituents, that more must be done.

Michael Weir: It is a somewhat novel, perhaps unique, experience for me to be speaking in support of a motion that begins:
	“this House congratulates the Government”.
	However, credit where credit is due. Many of us raised this issue consistently with the previous Administration, who refused point blank to take any responsibility for the regulatory failures that led to the disastrous situation at Equitable Life, despite the fact that their own report by Lord Penrose pointed clearly to the regulatory failures in this case. This Government have grasped the nettle and introduced a scheme that has given some relief to many thousands of policyholders who have lost out.
	Interestingly, in the last update on the scheme issued by the Treasury, it appears that some 160,000 policyholders have not come forward to submit a claim. A large number of people have still not taken advantage of the help that is offered at the moment, and we should continue to urge them to come forward. It took the report from the ombudsman to get the ball rolling on compensation, and I suppose the reason we are still debating it today was her conclusion that
	“the diversion of scarce public resources is a relevant consideration which should be taken into account and weighed in the balance along with other relevant considerations”.
	Despite what the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, there is a huge difference between the amount sought by the action group, which is about £5 billion, and the amount originally proposed by the Government, which was as little as £500 million. EMAG’s website quotes two vastly different figures, and the Government came down in the middle with a figure of £1.5 billion. I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said—we need to deal with the issue of compensation—but first we have to negotiate the sums involved.
	The action group has consistently campaigned for full compensation. Its members thought it unfair that “affordability constraints”, as the Government put it, meant they did not get the full compensation to which they were entitled and that they only received 25% of the full amount. Its paper calls it a double injustice that Equitable pensioners should not only bear the cost of the Treasury’s inability to regulate Equitable Life in the 1990s, but be denied the full compensation owed to them because the Government’s inability to regulate the banking sector
	“blew a hole in Government finances”.
	There is some justice to that.
	As the action group points out, policyholders have received compensation amounting to only 22.4% of their losses, and it argues that people’s pension savings, carefully accumulated over decades, should be safeguarded in exactly the same way as funds deposited in banks and building societies, but that is a dangerous argument to make, because funds protected in banks and building societies are subject to a maximum, so it is not complete protection.

Roger Williams: I am sure that like all right hon. and hon. Members, the hon. Gentleman and I have constituents affected by this matter, and what they fear most is uncertainty. Mr and Mrs O’Meagher, who are 80 and live in my constituency, have to travel to London so that Mrs O’Meagher can give music lessons in order to top up their income, but they cannot continue to do that, and with their losses from Equitable Life, they see their life in terrible trouble.

Michael Weir: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I agree that this matter needs to be tackled—I shall say something about that shortly. In a follow- up report, the ombudsman was unable to conclude that the Government’s proposals complied with her recommendations for the establishment of a compensation scheme. Even the ombudsman says that more needs to be done.
	Like most Members, I had many Equitable Life policyholders in my constituency, and I have had a considerable postbag on the issue from the outset. Many of the policyholders were elderly, and sadly some have died as the saga has ground on, but there remains a great sense of injustice among those still living. Equitable Life was touted as a long-established steady company —when I was a practising solicitor, it was seen as a gold-standard company. No one realised the problem lurking below the surface.

Alan Beith: Many solicitors told their clients that they themselves had their pensions with Equitable Life and recommended it.

Michael Weir: I never had my pension with Equitable Life, but the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Many solicitors, accountants and other professionals invested in Equitable Life. It was popular with financial advisers because it was seen as a safe, steady company, but it turned out not to be, and people lost a lot of money because it was not properly regulated.
	The Government need to consider future pension provision. Increasingly, we are being urged to invest in pension provision to augment our state pensions, and with the recent revelations that less than half of new pensioners will receive the whole new single-tier pension when it is introduced next year, that is more relevant than ever. The new rules granting much greater freedom for pension holders to access their pensions savings will greatly alter the pensions landscape and the attitude of savers towards pensions, but it might also make it more difficult for company investment strategies. It is imperative in this new environment that there is confidence in the stability and worth of pensions investment—it is not the same as putting money in a bank or building society, where the rate of interest is known, pitiful though it might be at present; it depends on fluctuations
	in the market and the type of investment made. Admittedly, there is no guaranteed return—there is always an element of risk—but for most people it is a major investment, so the risk should be as small as possible.

Alan Reid: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The public need confidence that the pension industry will be regulated properly, and in this case it obviously was not—the Government Actuary’s Department failed. Now that the public finances are in a better state, I think the Government should pay up in full, as recommended by the ombudsman, otherwise people will not have confidence in the future.

Michael Weir: I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman says. We have to grasp the nettle because it is becoming ever more important that we have confidence in our pension provision. If we fail to give people that assurance, we risk them not having the confidence to invest in pensions, or taking their money out at the earliest opportunity, leading to even greater pressure on the public finances. Equitable Life remains a running sore, and so long as that is the case it risks damaging the whole industry and the attempts to encourage future pension savings. It was not simply a bad investment; the regulator failed to do its job, and that led to substantial losses.
	We accepted that people were due compensation on the basis that the amount offered would be determined by the state of the public finances, but, as I said, there remains a gulf between the various amounts suggested. Before we come to any agreement, therefore, we must be clear about the amount involved, but it would be unwise to make it a party political issue just because there is an election around the corner—voters base their decision on many issues, including, in some cases, Equitable Life—but if the public finances are improving, of which some of us are less convinced than others, it is right that Equitable Life policyholders be considered anew. I urge the Minister to consider greater compensation.

Robert Syms: I congratulate hon. Members on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. Since my entry to the House in 1997, this matter has come up repeatedly. I look forward to the day when we no longer have to debate Equitable Life. In 2004, I was one of the more than 100 Members who wrote to the parliamentary ombudsman urging her take up the case, following earlier failed attempts. We finally got a report and we finally got action, but unfortunately it took a long time, and in the meantime many constituents in their 70s and 80s have seen their prospects of a comfortable retirement disappear with this sorry saga.
	In 2010, I argued that we needed to get a compensation scheme up and running to get money out as quickly as possible and that the question of how much was an argument for another day. I thought that if we got hung up on an argument about how many billions, it would probably delay the whole process again. As it was, the Government acted quickly in 2010: the scheme started operating in 2011, £1.5 billion having been allocated, and by the end of January 896,367 people had received some compensation. Given the complexity of these
	issues and the difficulties of tracing people, on the whole I think the Government have done a good job delivering those funds.
	Nevertheless, 22.4% will have been a disappointment to many constituents. I do not want to get into an argument about the appropriate level of compensation, but like many Members I think the Government should contribute more as the public finances improve.

Annette Brooke: The last Government’s lack of action was described as “shabby”, and it would be a tragedy if this Government, having taken that brave decision in 2010, were to be regarded as shabby too, but unfortunately 22% sounds a bit shabby.

Robert Syms: I agree. For many of us, it is a start rather than the finish.
	The constituents I see in my surgeries have a quiet dignity about them but still feel aggrieved and think that the Government ought to move some more. My main plea today is for the Treasury to consider the issue. The public finances are still a challenge and will be a challenge for the next Government, but I think that as things improve, the Government should be able to provide further funds.

Mark Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Syms: I will in a moment; I just want to make a few more points.
	The reality is that most of those affected do not have the ability to earn money or to improve their particular circumstances. They made decisions predicated on certain estimates, and they have been badly let down. I am glad that the coalition Government have moved as they have. We have a good story to tell so far, but it could be an even better story if they listened to the concerns of Members on both sides of the House and made further movement.
	The fact remains that £1.5 billion has been allocated, and we have heard that £1 billion has already been paid out to 896,367 policyholders, but that 140,000 have been untraced. On the assumption that many will inevitably remain untraced, it must leave a balance in the fund of £500 million. At what point, then, does the scheme conclude that it will not trace some of these people? At that point, will some of the £500 million be available for further distribution to the 896,000 or so who have already received some money? We can argue about whether there should be more money, but if £1.5 billion has been allocated and not all of it has been sent out, that provides quite a strong argument for making a decision at some point to allocate more of the money available in the Treasury to help these people. I hope that the Government will address that issue first.
	The second issue is whether we could top up the £1.5 billion in due course to provide a much more satisfactory conclusion. Like many colleagues, I have retired constituents in my constituency—Poole—who are prudent and sensible people. Most of them made provision for their retirement in the best way they could. They did not go on gambling cruises and they did not go to Las Vegas: because they were responsible, they decided to invest. This provides a very strong case
	for a Government who believe in the ethics of people acting responsibly to stand by those people when they have been let down.

Kate Green: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) who opened the debate on securing time for it this afternoon. As we have heard, this is an issue of justice and accountability; and it is also one of confidence in the financial markets, confidence in the regulatory system and confidence that political promises and commitments will be honoured. It is particularly on the issue of confidence that I wish to focus.
	Let me start by declaring a personal interest. For a few months in 2000, I paid into an Equitable Life pension scheme offered by my then employer. Shortly after I joined the scheme, Equitable Life closed to new business and the company collapsed. I was lucky in that I lost, I guess, only a few hundred pounds, whereas many of my colleagues, like many of our constituents, lost considerably more. In the organisation for which I worked—this was typical for many policyholders—salaries were pretty modest, so it was people on modest incomes who had set money aside, in some cases for many years, to provide for their retirement who were left significantly out of pocket as a result. In fact, the organisation I worked for was a charity. Equitable Life had made a particular effort to take a substantial share of the charities’ pensions market. That is why, as a result of the important shares and securities market, a number of former and retired charity workers are now paying the price.
	From my own experience at that time, I view it as important to remember that in taking firm and clear action now, we send a very clear signal about the importance of tight and effective regulation. When I joined the scheme in 2000, I remember seeing advertisements all over the London underground, encouraging people to take out Equitable Life policies. It could only have been a matter of weeks before the schemes collapsed, and it is quite beyond belief that regulators and, indeed, the company’s managers, were not aware at that time that they were advertising on the basis of an utterly false premise. I can only assume that this was a desperate attempt to bring money in as rapidly and to as great an extent as possible to shore up what was well known to be a collapsing business at that time.
	However, that was not known to customers at the time. I did not know it, as a relatively financially literate and savvy customer, so it is crucial now publicly to recognise that regulation was seriously deficient. One signal we want to send strongly from this afternoon’s debate is that we will not tolerate that kind of lax regulation again.
	My second point about confidence and why it matters so much as we act now in response to the failure at the time is that after the collapse of Equitable Life, the organisation for which I was working—in fact, I was the chief executive—attempted to set up a new group personal pension scheme for our employees. A substantial proportion of those employees refused to have anything to do with this. They could not see the point of investing in another pension scheme when they had been so badly let down the first time. We are talking about people largely in
	their 30s who were absolutely turned off providing for their own retirement. I suspect that the damage to confidence in the financial markets at that time was much more widespread, going beyond just the immediate impact on the policyholders who lost out.
	Thirdly, we need to be honest and open today about where we are going in the future as regards compensation for these policyholders who have suffered so disgracefully. All Members have constituents who feel that they were very much misled by what they understood to have been a commitment to follow through the parliamentary ombudsman’s recommendation that they should be placed in the position that they would have been in had Equitable Life not failed. They feel that what they have received in compensation falls a long way short of that. I have to say that this mismatch between the promises these people felt they had secured and the situation in which they find themselves today is contributing considerably to a loss of confidence in our regulatory system and in our political response to regulatory failure. That is important, and senior politicians need to do all they can to put it right.
	I know that many colleagues want to contribute. I am grateful for the opportunity to participate this afternoon. I hope that a strong message will go out to my constituents and other policyholders across the country of the deep seriousness with which this House treats this matter. I know that our debate is being watched very closely by thousands of policyholders in all constituencies across the country.

Stephen Lloyd: I apologise for being a few minutes late at the beginning of the debate. It is a pleasure to co-sponsor it with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I would like to compliment the latter on being as active during the last Government as he has been during this Government to fight the Equitable Life pensions corner. I pay tribute to him for that.
	Many have spoken today, and this issue has been going on throughout the term of this Parliament and for many years before that. I am keen not to repeat what others have said. Let me make it clear what we are asking for through this debate, which is for
	“the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.”
	That wording was deliberate. We recognised, as we always recognised on the all-party parliamentary group, that we inherited a catastrophic economic situation so that providing the full amount of money would cause real problems. I believe that we have been reasonable and sensible all the way through. We understand the challenges faced by the Government, and the motion, as I have clarified, recognises that. We are fully aware of the challenges with our own economy and the global economy, so we are not asking for everything appropriate to be paid immediately. Rather, we advocate achieving doing that over the next few years as the economy recovers, which is fair and reasonable.
	Ann Abraham was the parliamentary ombudsman all those years ago, producing the final report in 2008. She said:
	“The central story of this report is that this robust system of regulation was not, in respect of the Society, implemented appropriately—that is, consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected”.
	All of us who are present today, as well as the 200 or so members of the all-party parliamentary group, recognise that the ombudsman herself saw that the regulatory framework had failed, and we understand the financial challenges. However, the reason we are here, and the reason the all-party parliamentary group, with the support of EMAG, has not stopped lobbying and campaigning throughout the current Parliament—I was privileged to become its secretary literally within weeks of being elected in 2010—is that this is a matter of not just probity, but honour. The regulator failed, and this was Government regulation.

Mark Williams: My hon. Friend is right to say that it is a matter of honour, but it is also a matter of urgency. He is making his case in a very modest way. May I invite him to endorse what was said earlier about the urgent need to settle individual claims—I think that the figure we heard was £115 million—and to address the issue of elderly people whose cases may well not be settled before they die unless we act now?

Stephen Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A number of people are now reaching an age when something needs to be done extremely quickly. A constituent of mine, Billy Murphy, a variety artist for 70 years, had been lobbying me patiently, and I had been supporting him, until he sadly passed away in January. He had been making contributions for many years, and he was a very good example of the people to whom my hon. Friend and many others have referred: decent, hard-working people who were prudent and put money aside. Those people have lost out, not because of their own inadequacy —not because they took a punt, or played the stock market—but because they invested in a well-established and respected pensions company that was regulated by the Government. It was regulated by the Government: that is the whole point, and that is why we as a nation, whichever Government are in power, have a real responsibility to do what is right.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I am a former Equitable Life policyholder myself. I had a company pension policy. I distinctly remember questioning the person who sold me the policy about how Equitable Life was regulated, and being told that there was no chance of its failing because it was acting well within the regulations that existed at the time.

Stephen Lloyd: That is a very important point. The whole system—from the perspectives of finance, prudence and proper rule of contract law—fell apart under Equitable Life. It completely collapsed. When something like that happens in a country like the United Kingdom, the duty of the Government, irrespective of some of the broader issues, is to provide proper compensation, because otherwise the whole fabric becomes extremely vulnerable.
	I find it bewildering that none of the senior managers of the old Equitable Life—and none of the people who were in charge of the marketing side or the investment side—went to jail. If I, as a Member of Parliament, find
	that bewildering, I can imagine the profound frustration that so many of our constituents must feel, given that they were doing the right thing. This was a company that was regulated, regulated within an inch of its life—that was the whole point of the sector—yet, through no fault of their own, it collapsed, and, a few years later, the parliamentary ombudsman said that there had been a systemic failure of regulation. All those senior managers and executives, whom we all knew, must have been aware of what was happening.
	I greatly appreciated what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). When she bought an Equitable Life pension which she kept for a few years, all the marketing suggested that the company was rock solid and the purchase almost a steal. She was told “You really must invest in this.” Those people must have known what was happening, and I fail to understand why they were not penalised.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is putting his case very articulately. When Mr Ralph Williams, along with a large group of my constituents, came to see me about this whole matter, one of the points that they made most strongly was that they were nearly all elderly. According to a parliamentary answer that I received on 10 February, only £990 million of the £1.5 billion total has been paid out. The Government are profiting from people who are dying at this very moment. Is it not only fair for everyone, including the annuitants, to be paid whatever the Government have agreed, in full, now?

Stephen Lloyd: I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful intervention, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to it. People are dying: there are no two ways about it, because of the age profile.
	Another constituent of mine, David Stevens—a distinguished teacher for many years in Eastbourne, a former mayor and, as it happens, a Conservative councillor, who is also a very decent chap—lost out hugely in the Equitable Life debacle. He lost just under 80% of the worth of the pension in which he had invested for all those years.
	This issue is about real people. That is why we are here, and why the all-party parliamentary group receives so much cross-party support. It is not just that we all know many constituents who are suffering and have experienced a profound loss despite having done the right thing, and despite being led to believe that the industry was heavily regulated. As I stressed at the beginning of my speech, I have believed—as others do—that this is a point of honour ever since I was elected in 2010, which is why I joined the all-party parliamentary group.
	In a civilised country like the United Kingdom, people are often rightly encouraged to save and be prudent so that they are less of a burden on the general taxpayer. Hundreds of thousands of people did that on the basis of an absolute assurance that this was a properly regulated industry, and then lost out through no fault of their own. I have always believed that senior figures in the Treasury must have known that Equitable Life was wobbly, but many people have received 80% less than they should have received, and that is unacceptable.
	I was delighted to speak today. I hope that both the Government and the Opposition will provide some succour.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Unfortunately, I must reduce the speaking time limit to six minutes. If Members really must intervene, by all means let them do so, but I ask them to try not to use too much time. We need to move on to the next debate sooner rather than later.

Geoffrey Robinson: I shall confine myself to the reduced speaking time, Mr Deputy Speaker, and in doing so, I shall pay only short tributes to those who have secured this timely and necessary debate. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has followed this issue—as I have followed similar issues—through several Parliaments, and that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has, in a very determined and concentrated fashion, made it a priority since his election on the basis of a very strong campaign on the subject.
	Several aspects of this issue must make us uncomfortable. We can all respond, in a way, to the emotive interjection of the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who called for immediate full payment and said that there was no alternative. That makes us all feel very good. However, I wonder what impact the debate will have on the many pension holders who are wondering whether we can improve on the present situation. We must not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made clear, give false hope. We are dealing with recalcitrance in the machinery of government and although we are entirely rightly approaching this on an all-party basis, which it is important for us to maintain, it is clear that for some reason, although there is a will to do this among Ministers it is held up because the machinery of government initially does not want to admit guilt, and at a later stage has to constrain things and uses the grounds of the public purse to do so. That will happen whatever state the public purse is in: other priorities will rank higher and there will be other things we need to do. We will be told we must look to the future and, above all, we must not create precedents. I say to the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who was a Minister, that they will find that the roadblocks put up by the machinery of government are almost insuperable. However, I believe that there is a way through in this case.
	Many Members have referred to the Penrose committee and to the ombudsman’s report. There was a very clear statement, the like of which I do not think I have seen in my time in the House, about a total and comprehensive failure of regulation. There are no ifs, no buts and no extenuating circumstances, just an admission of failure and of incompetence on the part of Government that should be put right. I believe that it can be put right and think that there is a measure for doing so.
	The great thing about this debate is that there is no doubt about the figures. I cannot see anybody disputing the figures, not even the Treasury. The total is £4.3 billion
	and the Government have pledged £1.5 billion. Without damaging the present deficit, £115 million would enable us to deal with the most chronic, the most aged and the least well-off of the pension holders. They could be dealt with straight from the contingency of about £100 million that is committed in the Government deficit, as is the total £1.5 billion. That is all in the deficit—it has to be for the Government to commit it. In my day, a commitment to spend counted as expenditure in the year it was committed, not in the year it was paid out. That might have changed, but it is a commitment and it will have been taken into account in the Budget this year. In my opinion, the whole amount could have been taken into the year in which it was committed and future Government projections will certainly all have it in.
	Without any effect on the Government deficit, we could pay off the clearly identified with £115 million straight away and we could look at the as yet unspent £500 million. That would make a big start, although it would not go all the way. I share the emotion expressed by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds and could speak about it with the same intensity as he did, but the fact is that £500 million is there. There is £115 million to deal with the worst cases. Let us get that paid out. I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East—this seems very much to be his idea—that we should have it in the party manifestos. There might not be great hope of that, but why not try? I will certainly support it with my party and I am sure that he will with his. I am not sure what success we will have, but we should support that.
	Beyond that, we are dealing with a further £2.3 billion. I do not think that we should consider a time period of any more than three years. We must be precise, so that unlike with the contaminated blood scandal, when the Government could sit back and say that having caused those people’s deaths they would die sooner or later, this does not become a terminal problem. We cannot wait that long. That money should be timetabled, committed and spent within three years of the new Government taking office. That is a proposal on which I think we can unite. We could bring most policy holders into it and it is doable.

Bob Neill: I, too, congratulate the hon. Members who secured the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), I have signed the pledge. This is not a phrase that often falls from my lips, but that was the right thing to do under those circumstances and it is right for Governments to keep their pledges. I know that there are constraints in Government and having served as a member of this Government I am conscious of the economic pressures, and I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) about the fact that periodically civil servants come to Ministers with rather convenient escape clauses, but the job of Ministers is sometimes not to accept such escape clauses.
	I am speaking on the basis that this is a Government who are committed to markets and to stability and confidence in our markets. I believe in that. The financial services sector and insurance sector are a critical part of
	our markets. I speak as secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on wholesale financial markets and services. For the markets to work efficiently, there must be proper and secure regulation and when there is a failure in regulation there must be genuine certainty of recompense to those who have done no wrong, because otherwise honest and sensible investment is deterred. That is the risk if we do not do justice to the Equitable Life policyholders. What message would that send? We all say that it is right to invest prudently and wisely for one’s future and any such message would be against the philosophy of my Government and, I hope, against the philosophy of any responsible Government. In the long-term, it is in the interests of good economics and good financial planning that we do justice to the Equitable Life policyholders.
	The motion is sensibly and moderately phrased. We are not saying that everything can be done at once, but that in the course of the Parliament this ought to be done. It might be that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Coventry North West is part of that. I will not be tied to an exact time frame, but it is particularly important that the oldest—the pre-1992 people—are given priority. It is also important to recognise that although the Government are picking up something that did not happen on their watch, part of being in government is that one has to deal with the consequences of what one inherits and has to do so fairly. Happily, thanks to the policies of this Government, the economy is improving. It is not unreasonable against that background to expect those people who have made a sacrifice, in that their fair recompense has been delayed, to share some of the fruits of that economic recovery.

Geoffrey Robinson: I know that the hon. Gentleman did not mean to interject any sort of difference between party or Government, but what he said was not right. The lack of regulation and the failure of the policies happened under a Conservative Government’s watch. We must get away from mentioning Governments, as this affects all parties and all Governments over the period of the failure.

Bob Neill: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but he misunderstands what I was saying. Regardless of party, there is an obligation on Government, and I must say that the 13 years for which there was a Government of which he was a distinguished member cannot be entirely ignored. We all must pick up what we inherit from our predecessors, of whatever party, and we must put them right. That is the key and that is why I agree that having done the history we need to move on and find a sensible way forward.

Stephen Lloyd: One of our profound frustrations was that the ombudsman made the ruling under the previous Government, which was sitting on a heck of a lot more money than this Government.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend makes an entirely fair point. This should all have been sorted out before the Government came on to the scene. The question of who was to blame and why ultimately requires almost a Crichel Down sort of approach—we must all accept responsibility for what happens under regulators who
	were not politicians. We must accept that it was done and must now resolve it. Had it been resolved sooner, there might have been more money around to deal with the issue. However, given where we are now and that the economy is improving, we can certainly do justice to people through a sensible series of staged payments, starting with those who are in the greatest need and who are most vulnerable. It is reasonable to ensure in the course of the Parliament that proper justice is done.
	Let me give a sense of the impact on individuals. I have one constituent who makes the point that having invested sensibly his income has effectively been cut by some £20,000 a year. To a pensioner, that is an awful lot of money and they have had to downsize from their long-established family home. Another constituent has an acknowledged loss of £61,000 and is some £47,000 adrift with the payments out. That is not fair for somebody who has worked hard and is now in no position to supplement their income for the future.
	Another very elderly gentleman had to wait some 18 months—because, frankly, of ineptitude and lost correspondence—to even receive acknowledgement of his entitlement. He should not have to come to his Member of Parliament to escalate these matters. That is something that any sensible and well-run compensation scheme should deal with as a matter of course. I am sure we all hope eventually to overcome the difficulties for our constituents, but they should not be happening in the first place.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am sorry to reiterate the point I made in an earlier intervention, but one member of the group of people who came to see me was elderly and, if he dies, his widow will get only 50% of the 22% he is entitled to, which is already pretty measly. Is it not incumbent on the Government to make payments now, in full, so that at least people can have that small amount of money to pass on to their dependents?

Bob Neill: On that basis, it is particularly important that we deal with the pre-1992 people, who are generally the oldest, but it is also important to have a proper, staged programme in place to deal with everyone.
	When I was a lawyer, I accepted, as I think anyone would, that it was not possible to deliver for a client everything in their legitimate claim, because money might not be available or there might be delays. A settlement would be reached and a sensible discount accepted as a resolution, but I do not think that anybody would regard 22% as being a fair settlement of a claim. The Minister is an honourable woman and she must tell us today that she recognises that we are obliged, as a matter of honour, to give the people affected a sum much closer to that of their undisputed loss. As has been said, the quantum is not in dispute—it is a proven fact. We now need to say that, because of the improvement in the economy, we can do better than we were originally able to, for whatever reason. That is the honourable and legitimate thing to do, and it would also restore faith in an important element of our financial sector.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Coventry North West and I hope there is enough that we can all agree on. The wording of the motion itself gives the Government the flexibility, provided there is good will—I am sure there is—to achieve its aims in a fair way for the people who have lost out through no fault of their own.

George Howarth: I will be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on giving us the opportunity to debate this issue and on the motion, which sums up the situation very well.
	I want to make two points. First, I am sure others have received a similarly, or possibly identically, worded letter to that which I have received from one of my constituents, which states:
	“Victims of the Equitable scandal are…incensed that savers with Northern Rock, Bradford & Bingley, Icesave, RBS, HBOS and others have been bailed out 100% while they have been left with…compensation of less than 25% of their losses.”
	When I first read that statement, I was not entirely sure that it was comparing like with like, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious it became that, ultimately, the comparison is completely valid, because there was a failure to regulate all those organisations and Equitable Life properly. The right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) has said—this was the first thought that occurred to me—that there were macroeconomic reasons for having to bail out those organisations at the time. Even so, the comparison of the two problems that both resulted from the failure of regulation is valid.
	Secondly, it has been said repeatedly that the ombudsman pointed out unequivocally that there had been maladministration. We need to think carefully about that and the implications for the whole ombudsman system if we do not accept its consequences as well as its judgment. An ombudsman system that finds maladministration and then says how it can be dealt with cannot be properly respected by the Government or anybody else unless the consequences of its findings—in this case, the costs involved—are addressed in full. It is important, for all the reasons that have already been given, that the people affected are properly compensated, but it is also important, if we are going to have a proper ombudsman system, to accept not only its findings with regard to maladministration, but the consequences of those findings.
	I am perfectly content with the motion, which concludes by calling on the Government
	“to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.”
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), the hon. Member for Harrow East and others have put together, almost during the course of this debate, a package that might work. It involves using more effectively the money that is already available now and then having a programme of meeting the full costs over the course of the next Parliament. I think that that strategy provides a solution and I hope the Minister will accept that when she responds to the debate.

David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and on his speech. He, together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), came up with a practical solution when they talked about the £115 million.
	As my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) has said, it would be nice if we could get some credit.
	There could not be a more perfect Minister to respond to this debate than the Economic Secretary, because before she became a Minister she was a wonderful advocate on behalf of those of her constituents who have suffered as a result of the issue under discussion. I hope she is well placed to persuade her boss, the Chancellor, so that, in two weeks’ time all the hon. Members present can take some credit, not least for the settlement of the £115 million. Every Member present has constituents who are among the 945,000 Equitable Life policyholders who have suffered huge losses.
	I have raised the issue many times with the Treasury and I always receive the same response, which essentially states that the Treasury has decided to pay out £1.5 billion of its £4.3 billion obligation and that the Government understand the policyholders’ disappointment, but that tough decisions need to be made due to the pressures on the public finances.
	We all understand that taxpayers’ money needs to be managed and spent carefully and with the greatest consideration. However, paying out the full amount of the obligation to the Equitable Life victims is not merely about spending the outstanding £2.8 billion of our scarce resources. It is about regaining and rebuilding the public trust in the ability of our Government to create a safe environment and regulation in financial services. This is about the reputation of the British Government and financial services generally.
	The problem is not going to disappear, regardless of which Members of Parliament survive the cull on 7 May. Equitable Life victims will continue campaigning and the Members who are returned here will continue to put pressure on the Government of the day to meet their obligation. The Equitable Life victims were, as we have heard, absolutely doing the right thing, working hard and paying into pension funds for their retirement. That sense of responsibility and work ethic is exactly what this Government support.
	By paying only 22% of the obligation, the Government are ignoring the recommendation of the parliamentary ombudsman, as many Members have said—it is the same recommendation that was previously accepted by the Government in full. The British Government’s ignoring the parliamentary ombudsman sets a poor example for ombudsman cases across the country. If the Government do not respect an ombudsman recommendation, why would anyone do so? It sets a precedent for undermining the work of ombudsmen generally throughout the United Kingdom. The need for austerity does not need to be explained to any one of us. However, compensation for victims of the Equitable Life scandal is not something that can be subjected to cuts. My constituents have already lost enough time and nerve trying to fight this injustice and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to honour the outstanding debt.
	I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government on what they have done so far. It certainly was not their fault that we were left with these terrible financial difficulties, but it is not right that the role of the auditors and external consultants should go unmentioned. They should be held to account for this scandal. Ernst and Young was providing audit services to Equitable Life. The company’s bosses now say that
	they regard this to be a closed case, as the individuals responsible have now retired. However, it is very far from being a closed case and a happy retirement for our constituents who are waiting for the remaining 78% of their money to be paid out. I reiterate that this is not just about spending taxpayer’s money. It is about the credibility and respectability of this Government and of UK financial services, and about the trust in our ombudsmen system.

Pamela Nash: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on their work on this important issue and on securing the debate today. They outlined articulately the time line of the issues surrounding Equitable Life, and I do not intend to repeat any of that. More than 1 million people throughout the country have been affected by the issue, which dates back to the early 1990s. No Government between then and now have adequately dealt with the problems; they have been problems for successive Governments. However, the people who are affected do not care which party is in government; they simply want to be compensated and to feel supported by the Government of the day in getting the compensation and help that they deserve.
	On Friday, I met two of my constituents who have been impacted by the maladministration of Equitable Life in quite different ways. The first was a gentleman who had cautiously saved for many years with Equitable Life. His hope, when he took out the policy, was to fund an early retirement at the age of 60. He is now approaching that age, but his hope has been dashed by the failure of Equitable Life. He managed to withdraw some of his money when the problems started to occur, but he has still suffered the loss of tens of thousands of pounds and he has been given to understand that he is entitled to no further compensation. The second was a lady in her 80s who had saved for decades but has been left with just a small fraction of her money in retirement.
	These are not gullible people. The policyholders who got caught up in the Equitable Life disaster were hard-working taxpayers who played by the rules, worked hard and prudently and responsibly saved for their retirement. The lady I just mentioned had worked for a company that had to comply with financial services legislation, which only serves to fuel her incredulity at what has been allowed to happen. She retired 20 years ago, hoping that the policy she had taken out would fulfil its promise, but she was misled and mis-sold a policy that she had received with good industry-approved advice. She believed that she held a legitimate and lucrative policy. She, and many others like her, put their faith in the pensions system and planned for their retirement sensibly, only to find that the rug had been pulled from beneath their feet when they retired. These are not wealthy people; they are people who are being hit by the cost of living crisis that my other constituents are facing. They have lost life-changing sums of money and their standard of living has been devastated in many cases. Their own personal long-term economic plans have been shredded, through absolutely no fault of their own.
	Some hon. Members have referred to the fact that locating the people who are eligible for compensation has been slow and inadequate. I believe that about 151,000 people still need to be found by the Government. What does the Minister plan to do to widen public knowledge of this issue in the near future? What publicity campaigns are planned to reach the most unreachable people, many of whom are pensioners without internet access? They would probably use the more traditional forms of media used for publicity campaigns. Also, I found it difficult when preparing for this debate to get figures telling me how many of my constituents might be affected. Will the Minister explain to the House why no figures are obtainable showing the regional breakdown of those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life’s payment scheme?
	Time is against many of the policyholders. We have heard that many have sadly died. The Lib Dem manifesto promised to set up a
	“transparent and fair payment scheme”
	and the Conservative manifesto had a similar promise, but many policyholders feel that the current scheme does not fulfil those promises. Those affected by the maladministration of Equitable Life have been left in great financial difficulty despite planning and saving carefully for their retirement. This has had a serious impact on their quality of life. In my experience, those affected are just as angry with the Government as with Equitable Life. They are angry with successive Governments for not taking full responsibility for the failures identified at the time and for not adequately compensating those affected. One elderly constituent said to me, “They are waiting for us to die.” That is the appalling impression that that lady has been given, and I am sure that she is not alone.
	I acknowledge that the present Government have made considerable progress towards compensating those who have suffered losses, but that comes nowhere near to fulfilling the promises of a fair payment scheme that appeared in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. That is not just my view; I suspect that it is the view of the vast majority of the 1 million people who have been affected. I ask the Government not to leave this matter any longer and to address it in the upcoming Budget. I ask them to ensure that people are compensated so that they no longer feel that the Government are letting them down.

Greg Mulholland: It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my neighbour the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd). I am proud to be a member of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, which has shown how powerfully we can campaign when we do so collectively and collaboratively on a cross-party basis. I congratulate the co-chairs and officers for leading us in that endeavour.
	I start by welcoming the progress that has been made. I remember the early meetings that took place towards the end of the last Parliament and the frustration that, at that stage, there was no compensation at all. We finally got the announcement of compensation, and
	I welcome the fact that payments surpassing £1 billion have now been made to 896,367 policyholders. That clearly represents great progress, but the clear message from the House today is that it is not enough. This debate itself shows that this is not the end of the matter, however convenient it might be for the Treasury—either side of the election—were that to be the case.
	I strongly support the motion today and I shall carry on campaigning on behalf of my constituents as part of the group. About 40 of my constituents have raised this matter with me over the past few years, and many have told me of the hardship that they have experienced. Virtually none of them are wealthy people. They are people whose modest and very well planned retirement incomes have been drastically affected, and that has had a huge impact on their quality of life at a time when they should not have to face that and can do nothing about it. I pay tribute to all of them, and to the way in which they have campaigned as members of the Equitable Members Action Group. They include Ray and Marjorie Dunn, who have worked closely with me and played an important role in bringing people together. It has been a pleasure to work with them and all my constituents.

Stephen Lloyd: Would my hon. Friend also acknowledge the outstanding work that the members of the Equitable Members Action Group have done for us in Parliament? They have kept us informed and provided a secretary, and they have ensured that we pulled together on their behalf.

Greg Mulholland: My hon. Friend makes an important point. EMAG has done a wonderful job. Working together, inside and outside the House, has been an exemplary way of getting positive change.
	One thing has not been raised in this debate so far and I am pleased to raise it strongly, as a member of the Public Administration Committee in this Parliament. One contributor today said it was disgraceful that neither the previous Government nor this Government had fully abided by the clear view or the will of the ombudsman, because they thought, “What’s the point?” I urge right hon. and hon. Members to look at the Public Administration Committee’s reports in this Parliament, because we are calling for a radical overhaul, part of which should be that Governments are bound by such decisions so we would never have this nonsense.
	We have an absurd situation, because we are talking about the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, with the responsibility to Parliament. The Public Administration Committee has a view, as the Select Committee that oversees the ombudsman, and it wants a radical overhaul, The ombudsman’s office wants a radical overhaul, as does the ombudsman herself and the public, but we cannot have one because Parliament cannot reform its own ombudsman—only the Government can do so because it requires primary legislation. That is absurd and we need to find a way to enable Parliament to introduce legislation for matters that are parliamentary and not to do with the Government. I urge the Government in the Parliament—whoever is in government—to listen finally to that, to let go and allow Parliament to reform its own ombudsman in a way that is so clearly needed.
	I am glad that this Government have come up with more than Sir John Chadwick proposed, which we all strongly said was not enough. I am also pleased with
	the campaign launched in October 2013 to find the 400,000 lost victims of the Equitable Life scandal. There are now approximately 142,000 policyholders who are due a payment but the scheme has not yet been able to trace or validate their address, so I hope that work will continue. This is taking too long, given that these people are in their retirement, need this money now and simply cannot wait. Tragically, some of them have died, and some will die without having had the chance to get that money they are clearly owed as a result of the maladministration and lack of regulation.
	What is particularly galling is that there has been a double failure of regulation: the failure to regulate the banks properly led to the catastrophic collapse in the banking sector, which then led to vast amounts of money going to bail out those banks, and that is one reason there is not the money in the pot to compensate these people. That is a bitter pill to swallow, which is why there is no justification for not backing today’s motion and not coming forward, finally, after all these years, with the solution that is clearly the right and moral one.
	Let me give an example to illustrate that point. After the giving of £620 million to 37,000 annuitants, 945,000 Equitable Life policyholders have shared the remaining £775 million, which of course is the 22% of their losses. Yet when we look at how much money has gone into the banking sector—we still have publicly owned banks—we see that there is a discrepancy that simply does not sit right and must be addressed.
	We must finally draw this matter to a close. We must finally see a fair and final resolution. I share the passion of right hon. and hon. Members in not wanting to have to debate that; we must not be debating this issue at the end of the next Parliament. I hope we shall see some progress in the Budget. It is realistic to say that it will be some and not all—the latter would not be realistic—but it absolutely must be in the next Parliament. Let us now have a cross-party convention, let us take this out of the electioneering and have a genuine, firm policy commitment that the next Government will honour this pledge, as should have been done. It is an obligation on the British state, an obligation on this House and an obligation on this Government and the next one. It is an obligation that must finally be honoured.

Stephen Timms: I wish to acknowledge, again, as has been done throughout this good debate, the extent of the hardship and anxiety that all too many people have endured as a result of the failure of Equitable Life. I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) who have led the all-party group, spoken in the debate and championed the cause of the victims of the Equitable Life collapse over the years, and to others like them. Like the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), I also want to pay tribute to EMAG for its tireless campaigning on behalf of so many people who have lost so much. Its campaign has won real sympathy and support in Parliament and among the wider public.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) rightly pointed out that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill)
	seemed to be a little unsure of the history of this case. The problems at Equitable Life occurred between 1990 and 2001, so almost all occurred under the regulatory arrangements in place before the creation of the Financial Services Authority. The previous Government, of whom I was a member, issued an apology in January 2009 to policyholders, on behalf of the public bodies and the successive Governments responsible for the regulation of Equitable Life between 1990 and 2001 and for the maladministration that took place.
	The consistent argument of EMAG has always been that the losses incurred by Equitable Life members are due to maladministration, as opposed to the bad investments and rash actions undertaken by Equitable Life. As we have heard in the debate, EMAG felt vindicated by the ombudsman’s reports. The previous Government did not agree with that view—with the view of the ombudsman. Members of the current Government stated clearly during the election campaign —we have heard about the pledges that were widely signed by Government Members—that they did agree. In government, however, they have not delivered.
	The previous Government recognised that many policy- holders were disproportionately affected by the events at Equitable Life, and on that basis announced a commitment to a payments scheme to help. The ombudsman proposed a scheme entailing a case-by-case review, looking at 30 million investment decisions by 1.5 million people over 20 years. The ombudsman thought that would take two and a half years, but others thought it would be more. The previous Government asked Sir John Chadwick to advise on a simpler scheme. His report in July 2010, after the general election, referred to
	“the obvious impracticability—if not impossibility—of determining these questions on an individual basis”.
	The new Government, elected in 2010, explicitly accepted the ombudsman’s recommendation. Indeed, today’s motion, which I shall address in a moment, congratulates the Government on accepting the ombudsman’s recommendation in full. However, that announcement having been made by the new Government, the ombudsman then wrote then to every Member of the House in July 2010, saying:
	“In the light of the new Government’s commitment to implement”
	my
	“recommendation in full, the approach embodied in the Chadwick report has thus been overtaken by events and cannot provide a basis for the implementation of the recommendation.”
	She said that her proposal and Chadwick were irreconcilable, but Chadwick, as we have heard in this debate—the hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned this—was in fact what was done. During the election campaign in 2010, the then Opposition spokesman went around the country promising that, if elected, the Conservatives would deliver on the ombudsman’s recommendation. During the campaign, EMAG asked candidates to sign a pledge. The hon. Member for Harrow East was telling us that Conservative candidates were encouraged to sign this pledge. It said:
	“I pledge to the voters of this constituency that if I am elected to Parliament at the next general election, I will support and vote for proper compensation for victims of the Equitable Life scandal and I will support and vote to set up a swift, simple, transparent and fair payment scheme—independent of government—as recommended by the Parliamentary Ombudsman.”
	More than 90% of Conservative Members signed that pledge:; the Prime Minister did, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did. Every Liberal Democrat MP signed it, including the Deputy Prime Minister, and Equitable Life members and EMAG expected that once the coalition took office it would be delivered, but it was not. Not surprisingly, EMAG felt and still feels utterly let down by so many who signed that pledge in 2010 and did not deliver.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East referred to his amendment in the House in November 2010. I was just looking through the list of the 76 Members who voted for it, which includes the hon. Members for Harrow East and for Eastbourne, and of course my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, but it was mostly Labour Members who voted for it. Hardly any of the 287 Conservative Members who signed that pledge voted for my hon. Friend’s amendment.
	The Government formally accepted the ombudsman’s recommendation, but described Sir John Chadwick’s recommendation as one of the building blocks for a solution. That infuriated the ombudsman who argued that as the Government had accepted her recommendation, Sir John’s report was no longer relevant. It is worth looking again at what the ombudsman recommended. She wrote:
	“My second—and central—recommendation is that the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme, with a view to assessing the individual cases of those who have been affected by the events covered in this report and providing appropriate compensation. The aim of such a scheme should be to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”
	No one would claim to the House that that is what has been done. The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) made the point—the ombudsman’s recommendation has not been delivered—so I am a little puzzled, if I can cavil, as to why the motion invites us to welcome the Government’s acceptance of the ombudsman’s findings in full, given that they certainly have not been implemented.
	Legislation was enacted in 2011 for a scheme. It is not an easy thing to fashion a scheme that is both fair to members and protects the public purse. The Government came up with a scheme that was reasonable, although it fell far short of what was hoped for. I am sure that other Members who have spoken have seen the film on the EMAG website, “Time for the Treasury to Settle its Debts”, which features quotes from both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos—commitments referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) and by the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) earlier in the debate. The Government therefore formally accepted the ombudsman’s recommendations, but instead implemented Sir John Chadwick’s recommendation.
	We all hoped that the new scheme would administer payments effectively and efficiently. The Public Accounts Committee has been critical of the administration of the scheme, referring to a series of administrative failures, including delays in making payments to policy holders and poor customer service. Then in the March 2013 Budget the Chancellor announced some welcome limited compensation for those who bought their with-profits annuity before 1992.
	Many people have suffered, in some cases a great deal, as a result of the failure of Equitable Life. The hardship suffered is not in doubt. We support the steps that Ministers have taken to provide some compensation, but it falls very far short of what Equitable Life members thought they were being promised by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members during the election campaign.
	The Minister who will reply to the debate today signed that pledge. She made a commitment to her constituents to support and vote for the full compensation that the ombudsman called for. It is for her to explain to the House and to all those who have lost so much why that pledge has not been delivered.

Andrea Leadsom: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Members for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) on securing the debate. Their tireless work on this important issue is greatly appreciated by our constituents. Prior to my ministerial appointment, I was a member of the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders and a number of my constituents have been badly affected, so I am deeply sympathetic to policyholders’ losses in this sorry tale. I shall explain what the Government have done to resolve the long-standing issue of Equitable Life and set the record straight on some of the history.
	This situation has been a key priority for the Government. While Equitable remained solvent and continued to pay premiums to its members, its problems caused a great many of its policyholders to suffer significant emotional and financial distress. When we came to office, we made a commitment to implement the ombudsman’s recommendation that the Government should make fair and swift payments to Equitable Life policyholders in recognition of the part that the Government played in Equitable’s problems. Those payments were swift, in that within six months of taking office, we introduced the Bill that became the Equitable Life (Payments) Act 2010, and payments started to be made to policyholders in June 2011, which was within six months of Royal Assent. They were also fair because the scheme’s rules are based on the Government’s full acceptance of the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings of maladministration and, importantly, on the assumption that all policyholders would have decided to invest elsewhere had the maladministration regarding regulatory returns not occurred. Of course, that is a conservative assumption.
	The ombudsman did not quantify the relative loss, which is the difference between the amount received by Equitable Life policyholders and what they would have received if they had invested in the same way in a similar company, but this Government assessed the total as £4.1 billion. That was significantly more than the final figure of £340 million that was arrived at under Sir John Chadwick’s methodology, which was based on the previous Government’s limited acceptance of the ombudsman’s findings. In the 2010 spending review, after taking account of the need to be fair to all taxpayers, we announced that up to £1.5 billion would be made available for payment to eligible policyholders.

Christopher Chope: Is my hon. Friend going to address the part of the motion that calls on the Government to pay full compensation
	in the next Parliament? The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) did not deal with that point, but our constituents want it to be addressed.

Andrea Leadsom: Yes, I am.
	In line with representations received, out of that £1.5 billion, we covered the relative losses of the with-profits or trapped annuitants in full. Those annuitants were unable to move their funds elsewhere or to mitigate the impact of their losses by seeking employment. They were also generally the oldest policyholders. The remaining available funding, on the advice of the independent commission, was distributed pro rata to other policyholders, representing 22.4% of their relative loss. I know that that was deeply disappointing to many. These difficult decisions were taken in the light of the position of the public finances and in the interests of overall fairness to all taxpayers.
	The motion notes that
	“the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred”.
	However, the ombudsman went on to say that the impact on the public purse should also be taken into account when considering payment. She also stated that she was acutely conscious of the potential scale of what was recommended. She has subsequently written to the all-party group to say that the Government’s decisions on affordability and eligibility cannot be said to be incompatible with her report.
	I congratulate all Members who contributed to the debate. It is clear that they have been assiduous in representing their constituents and have done an excellent job. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) talked about Ernst and Young as the auditors of Equitable, so he might be interested to note that in 2010, for its part in Equitable Life, it was fined £500,000, plus costs of £2.4 million, and received a reprimand by the accountants’ joint disciplinary scheme.
	The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) asked for a regional breakdown of amounts paid. No breakdown by region has yet been compiled, although we could produce a basic one if that would be particularly helpful. However, I assure her that regionality does not influence the scheme’s operation in any way.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, as well as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, talked about the situation for the pre-1992 annuitants and the fact that they are elderly and financially vulnerable. The first regulatory return from Equitable Life that would have been different had there been no maladministration was that of 1991. This was available on request from Equitable Life from mid-1992 and could not, therefore, have been expected to influence investor decisions before late 1992. Therefore no relative loss was suffered by this group. However, as hon. Members have recognised, the Government agreed that this group of pre-1992 annuitants, although they are not affected by maladministration, have suffered significantly from a loss of income that they would have expected. For this reason the Government made an exceptional ex gratia payment of £5,000 to this group, with a further £5,000 to those on pension credit, in December 2013.
	The hon. Member for Leeds North East and the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) raised the question of compensation for the Icelandic bank savers in Icesave and why Equitable Life savers are being treated differently. The ex gratia payments to UK depositors in Icelandic banks were made as a result of a decision by the previous Government to guarantee all qualifying retail deposits specifically to protect the financial stability of the UK. The financial compensation scheme was simply the agent for these payments and we expect to recover all those sums from the Icelandic banks and are continuing to do so.
	Specifically in the case of failed banks and why they receive compensation, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme is funded by a levy on financial services firms, so again those compensations do not come from the public purse.
	In answer to the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Airdrie and Shotts who asked when the scheme stops tracing people, all policyholders are either written to at their last known address or put through electronic tracing methods, such as looking them up against the electoral roll. Attempts are made through the Department for Work and Pensions to trace those owed more than £250. I should tell hon. Members that about 50% of the remaining policyholders are due less than £100.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) asked whether we could re-allocate the remaining £500 million. That remaining £500 million is to make ongoing payments to annuitants for the duration of their annuity. Finally, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and for Southend West asked what we had done to ensure that people were not put off the idea of saving for their retirement. As hon. Members know, the Government have undertaken a fundamental reform of the regulatory system, and put in place the Financial Services Act 2012 to establish a new system of specialised and focused financial services regulators. They abolished the FSA and set up new regulators within the Bank of England and the independent conduct of business regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority. These reforms are designed to ensure that the conduct of firms, and with it the interests of consumers and participants in our financial markets, are at the heart of the regulatory system and are given the priority that they deserve.
	The recent news on the improvements that this economy has made since 2010 is to be welcomed and shows that this Government’s long-term economic plan is working, but we have a long way to go to restore the public finances, and the public purse remains very constrained. It is right that we have taken action on the Equitable issue, but we must balance this with the need to continue to address the difficult position of the public finances and the impact on fairness to all taxpayers. That is why
	this Government have no plans to change the funding available to the payment scheme. Our focus is rather to complete the small number of remaining payments. We have continued to make excellent progress with the scheme itself. Only this week I was pleased to report that over £1 billion has been paid to nearly 900,000 eligible policyholders.
	In conclusion, I genuinely have deep sympathy with those who carefully saved for retirement and are not receiving the income they expected. Resolving the Equitable Life issue, and doing so swiftly and in a way that was fair to all taxpayers, has been a priority for the Government.

Bob Blackman: I congratulate the 12 Back-Bench Members from across the House who made speeches in the debate and the huge number who intervened. The will of the House is quite clear: this is a debt of honour, and it is no fault of the individual savers whose life savings have been either lost or severely depleted. We have heard many examples from Members. I could produce a mailbag full of examples of individuals from across the country who invested for their retirement but are now unable to supplement their income, through no fault of their own. They did the right thing by saving for their retirement, but through regulatory failure, a failure by Equitable Life and a conspiracy with the then Government, their savings were taken away from them.
	This is a debt of honour, so I must stress the point that we should honour it over the course of the next Parliament. I completely accept my hon. Friend the Minister’s point that the economy was in tatters in 2010 and that a series of difficult decisions had to be made. I congratulate the Government on coming forward with a large sum of public money to compensate those individuals who are due. However, a debt of £2.8 billion is still owed to those people who saved for their retirement. That should be funded over the course of the next Parliament.
	However, given the remarks from the Minister and the shadow Minister, I fear that there are currently no plans to provide that compensation. That means the battle will go on. The fight will continue until such time as the Equitable Life policyholders receive the compensation they are due. Therefore, if it comes to it, we will press the motion to a vote.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House congratulates the Government on providing a scheme to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal; welcomes the Government’s acceptance of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in full; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been in had maladministration not occurred; further notes that most victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation during the lifetime of the next Parliament as the economy and public finances continue to recover.

Epilepsy

Laura Sandys: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered epilepsy.
	I would like to start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for allowing my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who has done so much to support and advocate on behalf of people with epilepsy, and me the opportunity to have this debate. It is a great honour to be able to open this debate in the presence of so many fellow members of the all-party group on epilepsy, who over the past five years have worked together to ensure that we raise epilepsy issues with all the relevant Departments. However, I personally feel that I might not have done enough. There is still so much more to do to ensure that epilepsy has its rightful place in health and social care and that it is seen as a chronic condition that needs greater attention, greater support and—this is very close to my heart—much less stigmatisation.

Mark Prisk: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and sorry to interrupt quite so early in her speech. I strongly support her and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) in securing this debate. Like my right hon. Friend, I am blessed by having a national epilepsy centre in my constituency, but I still have constituents who worry about stigma. In particular, Rachel Dawes and Susan Gayler feel that even now, despite having a national centre of excellence locally, the issue of stigma is important? Does my hon. Friend agree?

Laura Sandys: I most certainly do. Addressing stigma is at the heart of the treatment, care and, frankly, funding for epilepsy. Too often it is swept under the carpet. For example, statistically there should be many more Members of Parliament who have declared themselves as having epilepsy. That is because of the stigma and the overall environment for people like me—I am a sufferer, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard)—so no doubt there are more Members of Parliament who have epilepsy.

Bob Russell: Part of the training for first-aiders is how to deal with epilepsy. Does my hon. Friend agree that if first aid were part of the school curriculum, more people would be able to deal with such situations?

Laura Sandys: I know that first aid in schools is an issue that the hon. Gentleman is very passionate about. I absolutely do agree. This condition impacts one in every 100 people; it is a very large-scale chronic condition. When a child falls to the floor in school, they need people who are confident to deal with them—who know what the issues are, can calm the rest of the classroom, and understand that this can be managed and supported. If people in authority do not know how to respond—we have examples among the police, those in schools, and even nurses—they feed the stigma, feed the problem, and feed the anxiety around people with this condition.
	I feel that we have not done enough to push for greater change and greater focus, and to ensure that Government and the charities have greater ambition for people with epilepsy. However, I think we have done a reasonable amount, and I hope that over time we will do much more in this place and outside.
	Stigma is one of the problems. Epilepsy is not trendy; it is not a fashionable condition. It is not information that people volunteer when they make a job application. I can assure Members that one does not talk about it as a set-piece at social events when describing an illness during the week. People with epilepsy frequently try to disguise it; we can see it in their eyes. I have always been very clear about it, because I believe that we should take away the stigma. We cannot normalise it, because it is not a normal condition, but we can make it something that needs to be addressed in equality with other chronic conditions.

Kate Hoey: Does the hon. Lady think it shocking that in this day and age a very large public body like Transport for London—London Underground —could sack a young woman for the fact that she has epilepsy? Does she agree that we cannot allow this to happen?

Laura Sandys: I very much welcome that intervention. I was going to mention that case, which is extraordinary for two reasons. First, why would the young woman lose her job? She already had the job and was succeeding in it, so why was the sudden revelation of her epilepsy a reason for losing it? Secondly, her manager said that it had absolutely no impact on her ability to perform her role.
	This is, in many ways, a 19th-century attitude. It is the expectation that when one tells somebody that one is epileptic, they expect one to be dropping to the floor foaming at the mouth. Many in this Chamber may not know that until the 1970s I, as an epileptic, would not have been allowed to marry—although I am sure that many did because they did not declare that they had epilepsy. That is the sort of stigma that we were dealing with not so long ago. It is a Dickensian, 19th-century perspective. I believe, fundamentally, that that lies a little at the heart of why, for a chronic condition that impacts one in 100 people—more than many other conditions—epilepsy does not get the right level of attention. This is an important task for us here in the Chamber and for the all-party group on epilepsy, and for me to continue outside this place. Many other conditions have overcome embarrassment and stigmatisation. It is absolutely crucial that we start to address this through our public services, our schools and education system, and our hospitals and GPs.
	It is important that those of us with epilepsy are much more vocal. I hope that the Serjeant at Arms will not come and arrest me, but my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and I have actually broken the rules of the House. We did not exactly sneak up Big Ben, but we broke the very clear rules saying that anyone with epilepsy is not allowed to go and look at it. We thought, “You try and catch us!” We broke the rules of the House, and went up to the top. We have used that as a platform for saying that we should both contest it when epilepsy is not supported effectively enough, and challenge people who do not understand epilepsy enough
	and are fearful of those who have it. We think it took 150 years for somebody with epilepsy to go up Big Ben, and we are trying to identify other rules that we can break, so if hon. Members hear that my hon. Friend and I have got into trouble, they will know what it is all about.
	Epilepsy has a very wide range of symptoms. I am very lucky to have very mild epilepsy. It is controlled and I am on medication, so there is no issue and I am very unlikely to have a seizure. However, it is incumbent on people such as me to be a voice for people who are suffering, and who may have a seizure every 10 to 15 minutes. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, like Young Epilepsy and Epilepsy Research, very much focuses on people with chronic epilepsy. Such people do not necessarily have a voice, and it is for us to make their voice heard.
	The issue that has arisen in relation to the lady from London Underground is not the only example. Several people have e-mailed their Member of Parliament and asked me to raise their concerns. A young woman with a masters degree cannot find a job because employers say that she has declared she has epilepsy and they are concerned that she may become a problem for the company. That has now happened 12 times, but it must not continue. We must ensure that employers, the police and hospitals—even in a hospital, someone having a seizure has been accused of being drunk and disorderly—understand people with epilepsy and recognise their condition for what it is.

Cheryl Gillan: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on leading the charge in getting this debate? She will be very sadly missed in this place, where she has made a tremendous contribution. Does she agree that it is very important to understand more about the condition of epilepsy? Another area in which I take a great interest is autism, and it is estimated that 46% of children with autism also have seizures. Does she agree that we do not yet know enough about the relationship between epilepsy and other conditions, such as autism, to enable us to succeed on behalf of such people?

Laura Sandys: Absolutely. I totally agree. In many instances, people with epilepsy also have other chronic conditions, which are no doubt contributory factors. The level of support for research on epilepsy is significantly lower than for other conditions. Again, it is seen as a secondary or tertiary priority when it comes to research funds. It is absolutely crucial to understand the interrelationship between epilepsy and autism, as well as between epilepsy and school achievement and all sorts of not only chronic conditions but life-restricting—as well as life-enhancing—problems. I believe that we need a lot more research, but this comes down to people being clear that epilepsy matters.

Steve Rotheram: On that point, I have had correspondence with a hospital in my constituency called the Walton neuro centre. It says that neuropsychological care is very important, especially for younger people who, if they have access early enough, have the propensity to go on and achieve their full potential. Does the hon. Lady agree that Ministers
	should consider what more they can do on access to such neuropsychological assessment and care, and in supporting the work of the Walton neuro centre?

Laura Sandys: Absolutely. There are some wonderful, excellent centres in constituencies around the country, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but there are too few of them and there is not enough immediate referral to tertiary care once a GP identifies that epilepsy might be at the heart of a problem. We need to ensure that there is a greater understanding at the core of our health sector so that there is more referral. To be frank, we need more specialists. There is a major problem in the referral process. Epilepsy Action says that 138,000 people have been misdiagnosed. Some people are diagnosed with epilepsy who do not have it and others do not have the right medication. It is crucial to address the huge problem with referrals to tertiary care.
	Following diagnosis, the cost-effective and life-enhancing pathway is to ensure that the ongoing care fits the bill. There are straightforward National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines that lay out a clear pathway. There must be access to an epilepsy nurse. It would be fantastic if more GPs had epilepsy as a specialism. There must be a wrap-around package that allows people to live their lives and take control of their chronic condition. We must ensure that we have the right level of support at every single level. I am talking about people who are still potentially going to work and living their life.
	We have a serious problem with SUDEP, or sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. That is an outrage. About 1,000 people every year die in their sleep. Many of them are younger people who are just moving from youth to adult services and there is not the wrap-around care that is needed. We all know from our casework that in every instance and with any condition, moving from youth services to adult care is a problem. We are seeing serious problems with those who have night-time seizures. To be frank, although people say that that is a problem, there are examples of countries in Europe that are doing better. It is crucial that we meet those targets and ensure that we do not fall behind the standards of other European countries.
	I see that Mr Deputy Speaker is looking for me to wrap up. I would like to commend three sets of people, but also to challenge them. People with epilepsy live with a difficult and unpredictable condition. I take my hat off to them and to the people who care for them. However, I want them to come out and talk about epilepsy. I ask them to please ensure that their voice is heard, because if it is not, we will not get the care that we need. The charities are important, but they need to work together more. Their voices must be unified to ensure that they are heard. I call on the Government to address the Cinderella status of epilepsy. We should be doing so much better. We have criteria and there are examples, globally, of countries that are doing better. We must give people with epilepsy a lifeline to ensure that they can live a full life, and we must put the right level of investment into research to address chronic epilepsy in the long term.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am bringing in an eight-minute limit. I call Kate Hoey.

Kate Hoey: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will certainly keep to that time limit.
	I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on making it happen. As Members will know, I had an Adjournment debate on the subject on 29 January 2013, just after the report “A Critical Time for Epilepsy in England” had come out.
	The hon. Member for South Thanet covered a wide range of points, all of which I agree with her about, particularly the stigma of epilepsy. That is a crucial point, but I will not go over all of what she said. I want to use this opportunity to ask the Minister various questions. He kindly responded in detail to the Adjournment debate, when we had slightly longer than half an hour, and I thought it would be helpful to follow up on a number of the issues that were covered.
	I want to ask the Minister about the progress that has been made on urgent referrals, about which I and a number of other Members have been concerned. As I understand it, referrals are in theory currently meant to take two weeks, but I have had constituents who have had to wait well over two months. I want to check what the Minister is doing to urge commissioning groups and others to speed that up, because it really makes a difference if someone is seen as quickly as possible.
	Part of the problem in looking at epilepsy is the lack of understanding throughout the country. Many people do not say that they have epilepsy of one form or another, but it is amazing how many times, when it comes up in a conversation, people say, “Oh yes, my cousin”—or uncle or whoever—“has epilepsy”. There is always somebody, because the numbers are very large. Will the Minister say something about that?
	As I mentioned in the previous debate, a significant number of people with epilepsy have avoidable seizures. If the correct treatment is given at an early stage, that consequence can be avoided, which prevents benefit dependency, the loss of employment or people having to give up education due to a lack of support.
	Will the Minister confirm what progress his Department has made on some of the other issues that were raised in my Adjournment debate and previous debates, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) when introducing her ten-minute rule Bill, which I am sure she will want to mention? There is a stigma to epilepsy, but we have to promote the positive fact that so many people with epilepsy live perfectly normal lives which we would all be proud of and happy with. Will the Minister make a commitment that the disabled freedom pass and disabled railcard will continue to be available to those with epilepsy? Will he reassure anyone who is watching that that important support will definitely be kept?
	Epilepsy constitutes a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and as such, employers are required to make reasonable adjustments so that employees suffering from epilepsy can stay in work. Epileptic episodes are often triggered by work, particularly when an individual is working long hours or is otherwise under stress. However, people suffering from epilepsy are perfectly able to function at the highest levels, and in many cases can successfully medicate to reduce or entirely eliminate the
	occurrence of attacks. Almost three quarters of people suffering from epilepsy can be free of seizures once they find the most appropriate medication. Women of child-bearing age are restricted in the drugs that they can take, and people who first suffer from epilepsy in early adulthood often take a long time to adjust to the condition and make changes to their lifestyle.
	I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the case of London Underground worker Karen Guyott, which was mentioned earlier. She is 29 years old, and she was diagnosed with epilepsy about five years ago. She has now been dismissed due to her epilepsy. Karen was one of a number of London transport staff suffering with epilepsy—I think that 16 are London Underground operational staff, and there are a further 11 working for Transport for London.
	London Underground’s original response to Karen’s diagnosis was to attempt to dismiss her right away using its capability procedure. The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers successfully fended off that attempt, and instead got London Underground to make reasonable adjustments. Now, as I said, she has been dismissed, and I think the Minister should look into that and review it.
	Karen’s attendance record was exemplary, and in January this year during an episode, one of her colleagues moved her from a place of safety and left her outside a locked station supervisor’s office that was close to an escalator. Karen became disorientated and wandered towards the escalator, but her colleague realised the danger and moved her into the office. As a result of that incident, instead of providing training for Karen’s colleagues, London Underground argues that Karen’s condition is too risky for it to manage, and it is clear that it is no longer willing to accommodate her. Karen is a prominent trade union activist, but if London Underground is using epilepsy as an excuse because she is a trade union activist and it does not like her or some of the things she says, that is even more shocking.
	London Underground agreed to undertake a further risk assessment that amounts to an additional requirement on Karen to which other employees without epilepsy are not subject. Since then Karen has been dismissed, but London Underground insisted that she could not work at any station that had a public highway attached to it or any escalators or stairs. Everything she did required a “zero-risk” policy—the risk had to be eliminated —and such an approach is out of step with London Underground’s usual policy.
	London Underground’s equality and inclusion procedure states that employees who develop conditions during their working life must be transferred to a suitable position. As a huge public sector employer that has signed up to all legislation on equality and equal rights, London Underground should have made more effort to keep Karen employed, because with a modest amount of training that support can be provided. Given the risks that London Underground deals with regularly, a member of staff temporarily struggling to manage a relatively newly diagnosed but easily treatable condition would seem to be at the lower end of those risks.
	A recent employment appeal tribunal, Dyer v. London Ambulance NHS Trust, stated that the duty to make reasonable adjustments must always be carefully considered, and that only in the rarest of cases could no reasonable adjustments be made. That affirms that even when it
	comes to epilepsy, the duty to make reasonable adjustments could extend to redeployment with the additional support of the Access to Work programme. A lot more must be done and London Underground must be put on report.

Cheryl Gillan: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), and I hope that she obtains justice for her constituent. It is also an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). As I said earlier, she will be a great loss to the House, and I am personally sorry that she is leaving this place because I think she has added a great dimension to it, particularly on the subject of epilepsy.
	I declare an interest because the Epilepsy Society is based in my constituency and I am proud to be a vice-president. It has been working with and for people affected by epilepsy for 123 years. Although the detail of its aims and objectives have altered over the years, fundamentally it remains true to the vision set out by the group of philanthropists and neurologists who established it in 1892—to cure, treat and prevent epilepsy. It is unique.
	At the Epilepsy Society’s Chalfont centre, groundbreaking epilepsy research laboratories are co-located with England’s only dedicated epilepsy assessment and treatment centre. Led by medical director Professor Ley Sander and head of genetics Professor Sanjay Sisodiya, some of the world’s pre-eminent epilepsy researchers and clinicians undertake research and clinical practice at the Chalfont centre. The Epilepsy Society’s researchers have been central to new scientific discoveries, in particular research that demonstrates the breadth of genetic influences in epilepsy. The society also brings together state-of-the-art diagnostic tools for epilepsy in one place, including the UK’s only dedicated epilepsy MRI scanner and a specialised epilepsy therapeutic drug monitoring service that is provided to hospitals across the UK and Europe.
	The Epilepsy Society is also part of a unique three-way partnership with the NHS and with academia—the national hospital for neurology and neurosurgery at University college London—that has the benefit of translating research into clinical practice, providing access to funding, attracting top researchers and clinicians and providing the flexibility to innovate. The partnership has been recognised by the World Health Organisation.

Steven Baker: My right hon. Friend has taught me something today—I did not know that my constituency was adjacent to such a fantastic centre. Will she confirm that it is a national centre serving a population wider than just our constituencies?

Cheryl Gillan: That is absolutely right—it is a national centre.
	Under our new chair, Helen Pernelet, and the new chief executive, Angela Geer, the Epilepsy Society has an ambitious new vision to leverage its medical research strength to revolutionise how epilepsy is diagnosed and treated. Of course, there are issues facing the society’s specialised medical and research facilities, but sadly, with only eight minutes in which to speak, I might
	not get through them all. For the Minister, there are co-commissioning concerns. Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the responsibility and budget for specialised services were brought together in NHS England as the sole national commissioner of specialised services, but since May 2014, it has U-turned on national commissioning. Instead, the new proposals for co-commissioning would see responsibility for the vast majority of specialised services shared with local clinical commissioning groups.
	The Epilepsy Society is opposed to the co-commissioning of specialised epilepsy services for several reasons. NHS England asserts that national service specifications will continue to apply to co-commissioned specialised services, but it is uncertain how that will be achieved, given that CCGs are independent bodies. If CCGs are allowed to reinvest savings from specialised commissioning in other areas of their budget, it might create an incentive to underspend on specialised services, raising questions about the level of investment. There is also evidence that CCGs are not in a position to engage with specialised commissioning in areas such as neurology. For example, the Minister will know that the Neurological Alliance’s recent report, “The Invisible Patients”, found that only 26% of CCGs had assessed the prevalence of neurological conditions locally and that only 14% had assessed the cost of neurological services.
	I also wish to highlight the Epilepsy Society’s opposition in principle to the introduction of a marginal rate in specialised commissioning and its concern about the lack of clarity in neuroscience specification. There is an ongoing lack of clarity over the division of responsibility between NHS England and CCGs for commissioning neurological services, and there is continued confusion about precisely which services fall under the scope of specialised commissioning arising from inconsistent statements in the manual for prescribed specialised services and the neurosciences service specification. I hope that the Minister can respond to the society’s calling on NHS England to clarify this important service specification to ensure nationally applied standards for specialised epilepsy services.
	I encourage the Minister to improve access to the Government’s flagship 100,000 Genomes Project. It is an exciting development that the Epilepsy Society strongly supports, but the project’s focus is largely on cancer and rare diseases, making it unlikely that more than a handful of epilepsy genomes will be sequenced as part of the groundbreaking initiative, despite the huge potential that genome sequencing has for transforming epilepsy. I would like to see the Government continue to invest in genetics research and its translation into clinical practice and to ensure that it benefits patients with epilepsy, but I would particularly like to see the genome project embrace epilepsy.
	The need to reform the current system for accessing effective medicines will become ever more important in the context of increasing the availability of personalised medicines. I have been working locally with Daiichi Sankyo on patient access to novel oral anticoagulants, and there is a gap that the Department of Health needs to address across the board.
	In my remaining minutes, I would like to draw attention to the issue of laser ablation surgery. I have recently dealt with a distressing case of a constituent who sadly lost a family member to epilepsy. The constituent expressed great distress that a surgical treatment known as laser
	ablation therapy had not been made available to her and her child as a treatment option. Laser ablation is a relatively new surgical technique that burns away accurately targeted tissue with a surgical laser. The technique is much less invasive than traditional brain surgery, and enables surgeons to operate deeper in the brain. It is also much more accurate and carries fewer risks of complication. Laser ablation can be a good choice for patients who have few other treatment options either because medication does not control their seizures or because the lesions in their brain that cause their epilepsy are deep and hard to reach using open brain surgery.
	A significant minority of epilepsy patients—approximately 12,500 in the UK—would benefit from surgical treatment, including laser-guided surgery. In around 60% of these cases, surgery can be curative. Evidence shows that it also contributes to reducing premature mortality in epilepsy. Sadly, despite these benefits, only around 300 patients a year are currently given this treatment. I think that the Department of Health should urgently review the number of patients with access to neuro-surgery each year, particularly surgery that uses the new and less invasive techniques such as laser ablation.
	Finally, I mentioned the connection with autism, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet responded during her opening speech. It is obvious that although we have made great strides on epilepsy since the days when epileptics were not allowed to marry, we still have a long way to go. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the questions raised on both sides of the House about the future of epilepsy in the hands of the NHS.

Teresa Pearce: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this debate and on continuing to raise awareness of epilepsy. Although we are on opposite sides of the Chamber, I am sad that she is leaving this place after May, as the work she has undertaken on behalf of people with epilepsy is much respected both within and outside this House.
	Epilepsy is a life-threatening, neurological condition that can strike anybody at any age without warning. However, being a woman with epilepsy is not the same as being a man with epilepsy. Epilepsy and its treatment can affect sexual development, menstrual cycles, contraception, fertility and reproduction. That is why I am taking the opportunity today to talk about the urgent need to improve the support and advice available to women of child-bearing age who have epilepsy. In particular, I would like to highlight the importance of enabling women to make informed choices about their drug treatments.
	Approximately 139,000 women of child-bearing age have epilepsy, and around 2,400 babies are born each year to mothers taking these anti-epileptic drugs yet women with epilepsy remain uninformed about their choices and medication. They lack the specialised care and support they need, and they are at increased risk of maternal death. Given the repeated concerns raised over decades about sodium valproate and its links to the development of birth defects and foetal anti-convulsant syndrome, commonly known as FACS, this is nothing short of a scandal.
	The use of anti-epileptic drugs can present women with various problems before conception and during pregnancy. National guidelines indicate that women of child-bearing age with epilepsy should be made aware of the impact their medication could have on their unborn baby. While GPs should be highlighting these risks, the provision of this specialised care and information is variable at best and non-existent at worst—and this despite the fact that in 2012 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended a new indicator to encourage GPs to tell girls and women of child-bearing age about the risks posed by anti-epileptic drugs. Sodium valproate was specifically named as a drug that should be discussed. Is the Minister concerned that this information is not widely distributed, and what steps will the Department of Health take to ensure this is remedied as a matter of urgency?
	Sodium valproate is considered to be one of the most effective drugs for controlling epileptic seizures, but it has been found to increase the risk of babies being born with cleft palates and spina bifida. It is also associated with a very high risk of major malformations and neuro-developmental impairment. Despite that, a survey found that 25% of mothers were unaware of the risks, which is unacceptable and unjustifiable. If we know that the medication can cause so much harm—it is also prescribed for women who do not have epilepsy, to treat other conditions—why are women not being widely warned of its potential dangers? I accept that it is important to control epileptic seizures during pregnancy, but given that anti-epilepsy drugs increase the risk of foetal malformations, delayed development and foetal and maternal death, women with epilepsy are in an impossible position. They must either continue to take the drugs or risk seizures, both of which pose an increased risk to the mother and the foetus. Pregnant women who abandon their medication are at an increased risk of developing uncontrolled seizures, which can be fatal. About four women with epilepsy die during pregnancy each year, but those deaths could possibly be avoided if the right support were provided.
	I am sure that we will talk a great deal about numbers and statistics this afternoon, but let me put into context the way in which epilepsy affects people. I know a woman who, at the age of 15, began to have night seizures in her sleep. She was diagnosed with epilepsy and was prescribed sodium valproate. Eleven years later she married, and she and her husband decided that they wanted children. In 2007, having done some research and understanding the risk that sodium valproate would pose to her baby, she changed her drug. There followed, from 2008, a terrifying five years of daytime seizures she had never had to deal with before. Her previous seizures had always taken place while she was asleep, and she had been seizure-free for 12 years.
	The woman was now afraid to go out. She was afraid to get on a bus, and she was afraid to go to work. She was a teacher of primary school children, and she was terrified of having a seizure in front of them, because they would not know what to do. But the bitterest pill of all was finding that, either because of the increased seizures or because of the new drugs, she was no longer ovulating. She had to choose between taking a drug that would stop the seizures but might pose a risk to the baby, and taking a different drug, having the seizures and risking her fertility. That is a very difficult position for women to be in, and they need advice.

Norman Lamb: I take this issue extremely seriously. There has been an EU-wide review of the risks involved. The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency issued new guidance in January, and the British National Formulary has also been updated. The Department is considering the introduction of a “red flag” system to notify GPs of the risks posed to women of child-bearing age, and I personally am very keen to introduce such a system.

Teresa Pearce: I know that the Minister has met some of the mothers involved, and I am very grateful for that.
	Women such as the one I have just mentioned are in desperate need of specialised guidance and support from their GPs, but there is no such support at present. GPs should be providing pre-conception counselling and tailored advice, but they do not appear to be taking that responsibility seriously. In 2012, a survey by Epilepsy Action revealed that 26% of women who had been pregnant in the last five years, or were planning to become pregnant, had never received counselling. That puts women and unborn babies at risk.
	Pre-conception counselling should be fully embedded in the care pathway of all women with epilepsy and child-bearing potential, and there should be a specialist care pathway for all women with epilepsy to ensure that their pregnancies are flagged as potentially high risk. Every such woman should receive regular input from an epilepsy specialist and an obstetrician, and any breakthrough or worsening of seizures should be investigated as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister tell me what funding, training and planning are needed to implement those steps?
	The co-operation of GPs and health care professionals is crucial to ensuring that any strategy actually works. I welcomed the stronger guidance that was released in January by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. It states that sodium valproate should not be prescribed to female children, female adolescents, women of child-bearing potential or pregnant women unless other treatments are ineffective or not tolerated. As the Minister said, the guidance followed a Europe-wide review. What steps will the Department take to ensure that it is fully implemented? Every woman taking an anticonvulsant has the right to an informed choice, but we know that information on the effects of sodium valproate on pregnancy was withheld from female patients in 1972. Following the European review in 2014, why has providing information to female patients not been made a mandatory action?
	At this moment, the picture is bleak. A recent report entitled “Saving Mothers’ Lives” highlighted the failure to reduce maternal deaths from epilepsy over the past two years. If women with epilepsy were provided with support and health care tailored to their specific condition, it is likely that the number of maternal deaths would be reduced. The science is available to ensure that women with epilepsy can have successful pregnancies with the right support, but that must be universally available to all women with epilepsy since simple measures can decrease the risks associated with epilepsy in pregnancy. I have worked closely with women whose children have suffered from FACS and families who have been affected by the lack of information.
	In particular, I have worked with Janet Williams and Emma Murphy, who run IN-FACT, the Independent Foetal Anti-Convulsant Trust, and I respect and admire them for their relentless commitment and dedication to raising awareness of this issue. I first met them just after I entered the House in 2010, when families were devastated following the withdrawal of legal aid case for a class action against the manufacturers of the drug. After six years of preparation, that trial did not go ahead. I tabled an early-day motion, signed by 82 MPs, urging the Legal Services Commission to reconsider, but it did not. Last year, I wrote to the Department of Health to ask whether compensation would be available. I received a response from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is responsible for life sciences. He said:
	“Compensation for people who believe they have been adversely affected by a particular drug is a matter for the judicial system”.
	I also received one from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is responsible for care and support, who said:
	“it would be inappropriate for ministers to intervene in or comment on matters which must remain for the judicial system.”
	The fact is that these families have sought justice and done everything they can, but they have been denied support and denied justice. Will the Government act?

Steven Baker: I ask the Government to take a close interest in the case of my constituent Jessica Monks, which I shall relate from the perspective of her parents. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for creating the opportunity for me to do so and for giving me the opportunity to inform myself about this important issue. I have been astonished by what I have learned.
	I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce). As she will learn, I too will talk about issues of consent towards the end of my speech. It was shocking to hear what she set out about consent.
	Jessica Monks was not just a cheerful but a positively joyful young woman. Her life and her untimely death are a case study in what can go badly wrong and what ought to be done. Jessica was born on 7 February 1996 and lived in Medmenham in my constituency. She suffered from epilepsy and was under the care of the neurology department of the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford. I understand that she was learning to live very well with her condition.
	Jessica died by suicide on Saturday 24 January 2015 as a result of a psychotic episode related to the epilepsy medication she was taking. She had been taking Zonisamide since about November 2013, but her seizures had not stopped. Her neurologist told her parents to keep an eye on her moods and to make an appointment with him immediately if her moods changed in any way.
	Over Christmas 2014, Jessica, usually a joyful young woman, became noticeably low and withdrawn, very unlike her usual buoyant self. As requested, Mr and Mrs Monks attempted to make an appointment for Jessica to see her neurologist about her changing moods in early January, but despite several phone calls they did not receive a response. Her parents were concerned
	about her deteriorating mood so they made an appointment with her GP, who saw her on 8 January. The GP agreed that her mood had deteriorated but, crucially, felt that it was important to speak to her neurologist before prescribing any medication to help her mood improve.
	On Friday 9 January, Jessica was admitted to Wexham Park hospital after taking an overdose of Zonisamide, oxcarbazepine and paracetamol. She was seen by a junior psychiatric nurse, and I am surprised that it was a nurse. I am sure that they do a wonderful job, but I would have thought that in such circumstances a consultant would have been appropriate. However, the nurse deemed her fit for discharge. Following a further attempted suicide on Monday 12 January, Jessica’s parents made another appointment to see her GP who again recommended that Jessica be prescribed an antidepressant but felt unable to do so until she had spoken to her neurologist. The GP did arrange an urgent psychiatric appointment for Jessica and, thankfully, the psychiatrist phoned that evening to make an appointment and offer out-of-hours support.
	At the psychiatric appointment on 22 January, Jessica was diagnosed as suffering from a psychotic episode and was instructed to stop taking the anti-depressants immediately. The psychiatrist was concerned that the drug Jessica was taking was causing this psychotic side effect—which is, by the way, well known—and said she would speak to the neurologist that evening to discuss whether Jessica should cease taking the epilepsy drug Zonisamide.
	On Saturday 24 January, Jessica died when she stepped in front of an oncoming train.

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend is talking about a tragic case and I cannot begin to imagine what the family have been through. I am very happy to meet him to discuss further what lessons can be learned.

Steven Baker: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend.
	Mr and Mrs Monks feel that there was a significant breakdown in the care of their daughter, and I certainly agree with them. The speed and severity with which her mental health deteriorated due to her epilepsy medication were not considered a priority—they were not adequately prioritised—and they feel they have been badly let down by the medical professionals they saw in the days leading up to Jessica’s death.
	Jessica’s death was apparently avoidable. We need to know why it was not avoided. There are a number of questions to be answered by the NHS and the investigation is ongoing, as, indeed, is the coroner’s inquest. I contacted the coroner before raising this case and they were content for me to do so. I will not run through all the questions, some of which are apparent, but I should like to ask in particular why was the consultant neurologist not more available? Why, when it is well known, as the Library brief explains, that some of this medication can cause these side effects, was more immediate, perhaps telephone, support not available in the event of an episode?

Cheryl Gillan: Among other things, I sit on the Public Administration Committee and we are responsible for the health ombudsman. Will my hon. Friend make sure that the details of this case are passed to the Committee
	and to the ombudsman, because we are looking into how complaints are dealt with and how we can learn for the future from such tragic experiences?

Steven Baker: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I have already passed the details to the Minister. I am aware of the inquest and the NHS investigation, but I will certainly take her advice and give those other bodies the opportunity to investigate.
	That brings me on to the specific issue of consent. I have spoken to Mr and Mrs Monks today and they say that at no point was it explained to them that this medication could have these side effects. Jessica was 17 when she started taking it, and I feel that that possibility really should have been explained to her parents. They should have had the opportunity to take very strong action. Of course, they did take very strong action—they took the strongest action they could—and it seems to me, without wishing to pass judgment, that the key problem was that they could not get hold of the neurologist.

Julian Lewis: I am puzzled that the instructions that came with the medication did not include a warning that if someone had those sorts of side effects, they should cease taking it.

Steven Baker: I am a layman, but one of the things I have learned today is that one cannot simply cease taking medication for epilepsy, so specialist advice is required.

Laura Sandys: indicated assent.

Steven Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for acknowledging that. Put simply, it seems that the epilepsy medication, which was necessary, caused psychotic side effects, which were exacerbated by anti-depressants that were prescribed with the best intentions. Jessica therefore spiralled into the situation that tragically led to her death.
	I would like to finish with a few words from Jessica’s parents, who have written to me:
	“The sudden and tragic death of our otherwise healthy and happy teenage daughter has caused devastation throughout our family and local community. We strongly feel that this situation could have been avoided if we were given the correct advice and prompt treatment and are committed to ensuring the same mistake does not happen to another epilepsy patient.”
	Susan and Steven Monks have been robbed of their daughter and of all the future opportunities, hopes and dreams for which she stood. They deserve to know why and what will be done about it.

Valerie Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker). I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. Members in asking him to pass on the sympathy of the House to his constituents, whose case he has so ably put forward.
	I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on epilepsy, and for fulfilling her final task of securing this debate before leaving the House. She will be sadly missed; we shall
	also miss her enthusiasm and her commitment to epilepsy and to her constituents, for whom she has been an assiduous MP.

Laura Sandys: I am absolutely thrilled that the all-party group’s chairmanship has been handed to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who I know will put a huge amount of passion and energy into continuing the fight and ensuring that the voice of those with epilepsy is very much heard.

Valerie Vaz: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I hope to be as good as her, but I am not sure that I will be.
	This is a timely debate, in that it comes between two important dates. The World Health Organisation adopted a resolution on 2 February this year, and world epilepsy day is on 26 March, when we are all urged to “colour it purple”. It is just an accident that I happen to be wearing purple today. This debate is taking place 12 days after 14 February, and most people probably know that St Valentine is the patron saint of epilepsy. The WHO launched a campaign on 9 February to improve the epilepsy treatment gap and it urged member states to look into the matter. It set out a number of clauses, and I shall mention just a few of them. Member states were urged: to ensure public awareness of and education about epilepsy; to integrate epilepsy management; and to introduce and implement national health care plans of action for epilepsy management. There are many more clauses and I urge hon. Members to look at them. A number of excellent reports have been published recently and I will touch on those in a moment.
	I want to deal with three different stages of services: those for young people; the transition from young person to adult; and adult services. Here are some background facts. The brain is the most complex organ in the body with more than 100 billion neurones passing messages around it. The vast majority of the brain’s activities are subconscious. Epilepsy is a life-threatening neurological condition that can affect anybody at any age without warning. There are 40 different types of epilepsy and at least 40 different types of seizure, and 87 people are diagnosed with the condition every day. Epilepsy now accounts for more deaths than cervical cancer and is among the top 10 causes of amenable deaths.
	I want to turn first to young people. The report “Improving epilepsy care for children and young people”, published by Young Epilepsy, University college London and Whittington Health highlighted unacceptable levels of misdiagnosis, inadequate communication, a variation in care and a fragmentation of services. There are 112,000 children and young people who have epilepsy, which is one in every 200. The report made seven recommendations. They include creating an individual plan for every child and young person—as one parent has said, a one-size-fits-all approach is wrong; designing a year-of-care tariff for epilepsies; and creating an audit and annual review of relevant outcomes for each child and young person. Dr Amit Bali, who was involved in producing the report, has said that only small steps have been taken in areas that require big leaps forward.
	I was at the launch of Epilepsy12 at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health a few years ago. A number of charities were also involved in that, including
	Epilepsy Action and Young Epilepsy. Epilepsy12’s report revealed variations in the level of care and available resources such as the specialist nurses and clinics that are needed to provide care across the United Kingdom. Amazingly, it also found that some services were not even meeting NICE guidelines. In a later report, published in 2014, Epilepsy12 said that some progress had been made, and that two thirds of units had specialised epilepsy nurses and more clinics were being held. However, only two in every three units reported holding a weekly epilepsy clinic just for children and young people.
	The way in which young people are treated is important because it effects their education as well as their lifestyle. A three-year population-based study by Children with Epilepsy in Sussex Schools—CHESS—found that 95% of the children affected had difficulty in at least one of the assessed areas and that most of the children had several problems. The CHESS study found that 60% of the children met the diagnostic criteria for at least one behaviour or motor disorder, but only one third had previously been diagnosed. We have heard about the difficulties that children on anti-epileptic drugs have. A study by the Epilepsy Society showed that AED drugs have a detrimental impact on processing speed and memory work.
	On the transition period, Epilepsy12 found that there were inadequate services and transition arrangements for young people. So more attention needs to be given to handover clinics, which could comprise both adult and paediatric health professionals. The loss of the continuity of care at transition needs to be addressed to ensure that new relationships with the clinicians are established.
	Let me now discuss adults. The report by Epilepsy Action on clinical commissioning groups and commissioning in November 2014 found that only three out of 140 health and wellbeing boards are making plans for people with epilepsy. Some 78% of CCGs have not developed and do not intend to develop a written needs assessment for people with epilepsy—that must change. Evidence also shows that people with epilepsy have poor access to epilepsy specialists and epilepsy specialist nurses, and do not have regular reviews of their epilepsy. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) was kind enough to mention my ten-minute rule Bill, in which I called for direct referrals to a tertiary specialist: That has not been taken up yet, so we need to have referrals from a GP specialist to a tertiary specialist without the need to go through a generalist consultant.
	The sudden unexpected death in epilepsy is an important issue, as was highlighted by SUDEP Action. The national sentinel audit of epilepsy deaths in 2002 found that 42% of such deaths were potentially avoidable. Brain surgery is another area where there is a lack of availability, with only 300 operations being carried out on adults each year. It is estimated that approximately 5,000 adults could and should benefit from the only cure there is for their epilepsy. I also wish to add my voice to those of other hon. Members on the outrage at the sacking of the young person at London Underground.
	But there is hope for the future. The Epilepsy Society is undertaking active research. Its report highlighted a number of firsts, such as the first brain and tissue bank for epilepsy. It has created the first multilingual digital information resources for epilepsy, and it hopes to unravel the genetic architecture of the epilepsies and bring new hope for people with the condition. We should consider
	ourselves lucky in this country, because not only do we have committed practitioners who are desperate to help their patients, but we have areas where pioneering work is going on, such as that being done by Professor Cross, who has pioneered the ketogenic diet. In the US, until there was “Obamacare” those with epilepsy could not be covered by insurance because they had a pre-existing condition. We take all that for granted, which is why this debate fulfils the important role of highlighting awareness of this condition.
	Hon. Members will remember the drama “The Promise”, where the lead character, Erin, not only was a heroine, but had epilepsy, which was incidental to her life: Its writer, Peter Kosminsky, lately the director of “Wolf Hall”, said that he wanted to show someone being brave and getting on with her life without letting her epilepsy circumscribe her actions, in the hope of de-stigmatising the condition. On de-stigmatising, let us also not forget the roll call of creative successful people who have or have had the condition: musicians Neil Young and Prince; and the writers Dostoevsky; Charles Dickens and Lord Byron. I hope we have today brought epilepsy out of the shadows of stigma and discrimination, and into the spotlight of knowledge, awareness and hope for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are running out of time for this debate. I want to be fair to all Members, so I am reducing the time limit to seven minutes. If there are not too many interventions, it will not be necessary to reduce it further.

Greg Mulholland: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this important debate and giving us all the opportunity to contribute on behalf of our constituents. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for bringing her experience and for what she has done during her time here, and I echo the sentiment that it is a shame she will not be coming back to carry that on. Other people will have to do that, and I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will do that here.
	It is important to start by saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health has taken a real interest in epilepsy and that he and his colleagues have introduced significant improvements in this Parliament. Equally, the NHS Commissioning Board’s decision to introduce a national clinical director for neurological conditions, Dr David Bateman, has been positive in ensuring that epilepsy is on the agenda at the most senior level in the NHS.
	In February 2013 we saw the publication of the NICE new quality standards for children and adults with epilepsy. I also welcome cross-departmental working, and the fact that the Department for Education is looking at better support for pupils in school diagnosed with epilepsy. There is still a lot to do, and still too much of a sense that care is good in some areas and poor in others; that has to be a priority for the next Government.
	I am proud that Epilepsy Action, an excellent organisation, is based in Leeds. Its headquarters are in Yeadon, an area that I represent. The office is about
	100 yards over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). We share Yeadon, but we are both proud that this wonderful national charity is based in Yeadon in north Leeds. I will not repeat the findings of its powerful survey, except to reiterate one figure. Of the clinical commissioning groups that responded, 70% said that they had not produced and had no plans to develop a written needs assessment of the health and social care needs for epilepsy. That is simply not good enough and it has to change, and quickly. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister in the time that he has remaining to make it clear that that is not acceptable and must change.
	Every health and wellbeing board must know how many people in their area have epilepsy and develop an epilepsy section for their joint strategic needs assessment, and that should include information about current local provision and services and future needs. Health and wellbeing boards must also work with their local CCGs to ensure that adults and children in their area experience a joined-up approach to their epilepsy health care needs. Every local authority scrutiny board with responsibility for health must consider whether their JSNA adequately meets the needs of adults and children with epilepsy in their local area.
	I am delighted to tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS trust—this is not me saying it, but my constituents and practitioners tell me—is one of the best trusts in the country for supporting those who have epilepsy. We are proud of that. The trust has a team providing specialist epilepsy care and advice for people in Leeds and the wider Yorkshire region, and as well as the medical treatment of epilepsy it runs an epilepsy surgery pathway for people with difficult-to-treat epilepsy. It has specialist brain tumour and vagal nerve stimulation clinics. I hope that my right hon. Friend will join me in recognising that Leeds is a centre of excellence for epilepsy. If, in the remaining five weeks while he is definitely in this particular job he has the time to come and visit to meet some of the people involved, I would find time in my diary to join him.
	Like many other Members, I have learned from my constituents about epilepsy. My constituent Dominic Ware and his parents Vic and Carol have given me their permission to pass on some of what I have learned from them. My constituent Andy Cavadino also has epilepsy. They have enabled me to see both the good and the issues that need dealing with.
	Andy Cavadino’s epilepsy developed over 10 years after a serious head injury. The two main issues affecting him relate to driving and to medication. As a teacher, he finds it frustrating that he is allowed to drive a people carrier but not a minibus. He wants there to be a much more transparent discussion about what vehicles can and should be driven by people with epilepsy. The second issue that he raises has already been covered by other hon. Members. People have an attitude to those with epilepsy; they are often nervous and on edge around people with epilepsy. As Andy told me, people sometimes say, “Take it easy.” We need to raise awareness that people with epilepsy are generally on medication, if they need to be, and that that is helpful. We must do more to fight the sense of concern, paranoia and stigma that is attached to people such as Andy.
	Dominic Ware’s epilepsy has been a huge part of his life and that of his parents, Vic and Carol. It is something that they have to cope with. The care that Dominic has
	received in Leeds has saved his life and now enables him to lead a normal life, which is precisely what needs to happen. However, they and especially Vic, who is a passionate campaigner, know that for too many people, that is not the case. During the debate, we have heard of people who, unlike Dominic, have been failed, often with devastating effects, and that is simply not acceptable. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister support Vic’s call that whoever forms the next Government should appoint an epilepsy champion in the Department of Health to bring things together so that there is a single, strong voice in government to push the issue forward?

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

George Howarth: I add my thanks to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. I wholeheartedly endorse hon. Members’ comments that she will be missed in the House. Her speech was not only informative but unique, because in the many years I have been in the House, I have never before heard a Member declare themselves to be both a law-maker and a law-breaker. Even more alarmingly, she declared her intention to become a repeat offender. Her speech was also unique in that it brought before the House the experience of people who suffer this condition, and she gave us the opportunity to understand more about its dimensions.
	I need to say a word about the speech made by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), in which he described a tragic case. Anyone who has experienced the loss of a child knows exactly the depths of misery that the people concerned will have experienced. The hon. Gentleman dealt with a difficult subject in not only a suitably moving way, but with great dignity, and I, too, pass on my sincere condolences to the family.

Steven Baker: I am extremely grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s kind words. I know that the family have heard him and will also be grateful.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman’s speech highlighted a more general point about how chronic conditions are dealt with. I have some knowledge of type 1 diabetes. When someone with that condition reaches a crisis, whether that is a psychological crisis or something that should be dealt with by a diabetologist, they cannot always get to see the right people at the right time so that they can get the right support, prescription or advice. Brilliant though our national health service is, that is one aspect that all too often breaks down, so I hope that the Minister will address that problem.
	I want to concentrate on a particular issue, which I do not think has been mentioned, about which one of my constituents has contacted me: how the benefits system makes life very difficult indeed for those people who find themselves on benefits. No doubt the Minister will not be able to respond to my points, but I hope that he will pass them on to his colleagues in the relevant Department.
	My constituent, who has asked to be named, Mr Adam Lane, who lives in Huyton, said:
	“In regard to my DLA claim I had to go through 6 months with no money for myself, my wife and my two-year-old son. At that time we had to live on £50 a week until I went to a tribunal and won. Now I have to go through the whole process again on 13th of March for PIP. I have a letter from my epilepsy doctor stating how bad my epilepsy is. I fall and convulse without warning and have seriously damaged my knee, and have panic attacks throughout the whole experience. My seizures are occurring every week now and are very serious and now I suffer with migraines where I vomit 14 hours a day and I’m confined to bed through the process for 2 weeks at a time. I’m hoping Atos will not brush me off like last time, hoping to appease Government numbers to get people off benefits. I feel I am in need of benefits. I cannot work with my health conditions. My wife is my carer 24/7. My son has been traumatised though watching my seizures. I’m hoping my Atos interviewer sees what is in front of their eyes and not what the Government want them to see and say. Please, for others out there like me, let there be a way for people who do not abuse the system to be given a fairer crack of claiming what is deservedly theirs. Thank you.”
	I thought it was worth reading that out in full because it gives a very clear picture of how this man has had to struggle to keep his family together and to support them in extremely difficult circumstances, where the benefits system seems to mount up against him to prevent him having any kind of reasonable life. I hope that such cases—there are many more of them out there—give the Government cause to think again about how people with chronic conditions are dealt with in the benefits system.

David Amess: The whole House was moved by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker). The pain of losing a child under such circumstances is unimaginable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) started her speech by beating herself up because she did not feel that she had done enough to raise the profile of epilepsy. Nothing could be further from the truth. She has done a magnificent job, and she made my day with her invitation to colleagues to come up with ideas about how she should break the law as an epileptic. When she gets back to her room later, she will find that she is inundated with suggestions. I, like others, am very sorry that she has chosen not to stand in the next election. I hope to God that she is replaced by someone with the good common sense and judgment that she has shown throughout her time as a Member.
	Epilepsy is a potentially life-threatening neurological condition, as other speakers have said. It affects the lives of nearly 500,000 people in England alone. It can reduce life expectancy by up to 10 years and can leave people unfit to work, as we have heard. Among other consequences, epilepsy affects children’s performance at school owing to seizures. Nearly half of the number of deaths from epilepsy can be avoided. In the constituency that I represent, there are an estimated 865 people suffering from epilepsy. This figure increases to 13,600 for the county of Essex.
	What are the local CCGs doing to assist people with epilepsy in the area that I represent? I am afraid to tell the House that the answer is not enough. Clinical commissioning groups have a very important role to play. They have a strategic influence and make commissioning decisions that impact on the lives of an
	average of 2,370 epilepsy sufferers in each CCG area. I have recently been in contact with Epilepsy Action which—I agree with others—is doing a wonderful job in raising awareness of the problems faced by people with epilepsy. I was shocked to hear that my local Southend CCG has no plans to produce a written needs assessment of the health and social care needs of people with neurological conditions; has no plans to produce a written needs assessment of the health and social care needs of people with epilepsy; has not identified neurology or epilepsy as an improvement and saving opportunity; has not identified neurology as a priority for the local health and wellbeing board; and has not appointed a clinical lead for neurology. That is simply not good enough.
	Southend West has a higher than average number of people with epilepsy, because of its high age profile. The correct ratio for specialised epilepsy nurses to patients is 1:300. The specialist nurse at Southend hospital is currently looking after more than 1,000 patients, which is absolutely ridiculous. That has to change. More specialist epilepsy nurse posts must be created before any improvements can be felt by my local residents. I fully accept that it is a country-wide problem, but it is very frustrating that most CCGs do not understand the needs of people with epilepsy.
	I am in regular contact with the South East Essex Epilepsy Support Group, which is superbly led by its chairman, Mrs Diane Blake-Lawson. It is a wonderful source of information and support for epilepsy sufferers in the area I represent. I hear about all sorts of obstacles faced by people with epilepsy. Very often local residents are diagnosed and then they and their families are left without any medical guidance or support, and we heard a little about that earlier. I was particularly upset to hear that Southend hospital has on a number of occasions refused MRI scans and other medical examinations.
	I have received complaints regarding the prescription of generic drugs, despite evidence suggesting that their use leads to an increased risk of seizures. Even more alarmingly, I was informed that the latest drugs are not made available to patients, as older and less effective drugs are cheaper to use. That is just not acceptable. Local residents often get caught up in a confusing situation where the hospital says that they should speak to their GPs first, but once they contact their GPs there seems to be a reluctance to give any advice and they are told to turn to neurologists instead. There is clearly a lack of GP training in epilepsy.
	Nationally, only 20% of people with epilepsy who are referred to see a specialist are seen within the NICE-recommended waiting time. Even worse, there is an 18% gap in the treatment of epilepsy, meaning that 18% of people with epilepsy who could attain seizure-freedom experience seizures unnecessarily due to a lack of appropriate treatment.
	I want to touch on the issue of benefits, which the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) also raised, because a number of people are adversely affected by the present situation. As we all know, the process of claiming benefits can be lengthy and stressful, which in turn can aggravate the psychological symptoms as well as the frequency and severity of seizures. What I am most concerned about is the ability of benefit medical assessors—they are rarely doctors—to recognise and appreciate the severity of epilepsy.
	In conclusion, I think that there is a role for the Government to play. We need more funds to be invested in medical research to ensure that more people with epilepsy can access effective treatments. Southend residents suffering from epilepsy should not be denied access to the various treatment I mentioned earlier. For too long epilepsy has been forgotten when it comes to funding and the variety of treatments available. It is time for the Government to hold CCGs to account to ensure that due gravity is given to this very serious condition. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet passes the baton to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), I hope that in the next Parliament, whoever forms the next Government, we will do our very best to provide the best possible treatment for those who suffer from epilepsy.

Grahame Morris: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) on securing this important debate. In common with many other Members, I would like personally to thank the hon. Member for South Thanet for the excellent work she has done. She might not thank me for a glowing tribute, given that I am on the left of the party, but I think that she is a thoroughly decent MP who does an excellent job. She will be sadly missed. I am perhaps a less active member of the all-party group on epilepsy, but I am a member of many other all-party groups, particularly those on health and cancer. This is a very timely debate. It is thanks once again to the Backbench Business Committee that we have been afforded this opportunity to raise awareness of this important and often misunderstood condition.
	In a previous role—I was not double-jobbing, I might add—I worked in the national health service in an analytical chemistry lab where I used to do tests on anti-epileptic drugs using gas chromatography techniques, so I know a little bit about the chemistry but not so much about the clinical manifestations and symptoms. I pay tribute to the tremendous and powerful speech by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker), which really brought home the potential risks of this condition if left unregulated. It is one of the most common neurological conditions in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for South Thanet said, 500,000 people in the UK, or one in 100, have the condition. That is a considerable number of people. As I think we are all aware by now, epilepsy is not one condition but a composite. Other Members have mentioned the suspected link with autism. There are about 40 different types of seizure and perhaps as many as 50 different syndromes with various degrees of severity and complexity. However, with the right treatment, the right medication and the right support, there is no reason why someone suffering from epilepsy cannot lead a full and active life, as the hon. Lady so ably explained.
	Many Members have talked about access to medical care and stigma, but I want to stress another aspect—the discrimination that can be faced by those with epilepsy, creating barriers to education, and, more particularly, to employment. A report published by Young Epilepsy found that three quarters of people with epilepsy have experienced discrimination due to their condition. This situation was reaffirmed by work commissioned by the
	disabilities charity, Quarriers, which found that more than two thirds of people with epilepsy admit that they worry what members of the public would say or do if they had a seizure, with over a third expressing concern that having a seizure in public has led to anxiety about whether to leave the house, even, let alone take up employment. In relation to employment, more than seven in 10—72%—stated that their condition had an impact on their career progression and choice, with more than two fifths avoiding even telling people about their epilepsy.
	There are protections in place for those looking for work and for those who are in work, but I am concerned that these duties and obligations are not being met by employers. Equality laws make it illegal for employers to treat people with epilepsy unfairly, and protection must be provided against bullying and harassment due to their condition. Employers also have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to help people with epilepsy to get into work, or stay there, and to prevent them from being at a substantial disadvantage. However, we have found that people with epilepsy have been shown to be twice as likely to be at risk of unemployment as those without the condition.
	The case of Karen Guyott, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), has been drawn to my attention before. To comply with the instructions from yesterday, I am, as it says in my entry on page 205 of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, a member of the RMT parliamentary group, although it is unremunerated and the RMT is not affiliated to my party. It is important that we speak in this House on behalf of working people, and charities, and raise legitimate concerns. That example of someone losing her job is an important test case because, as my hon. Friend said, London Underground did not provide the training or support required.
	I only have a little time left, so I want to put this to the Minister, who I know is a decent and reasonable man: at the conclusion of the debate, I hope that he will make it clear that it is unacceptable to discriminate against someone due to their having epilepsy. I hope that he will support people, such as Karen, who are fighting blatant discrimination. Will he agree to raise her case with the Mayor, because Transport for London comes under the Mayor’s auspices? TfL is a significant public sector employer, and we want it to be an example of best practice. Will the Minister meet a delegation of interested MPs to discuss discrimination and epilepsy at work?

Martin Horwood: I commend the hon. Members who secured this debate, and the Backbench Business Committee for bringing this very serious issue to our attention. I have found the debate genuinely shocking.
	The statistics are shocking enough: 600,000 people in this country have epilepsy. That puts it on the same scale as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, but it receives far less attention, perhaps because we feel that we are used to epilepsy and it is not that serious. Another shocking statistic is that 1,000 people a year die of
	epilepsy-related deaths, and most shockingly of all—this was mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—42% of those deaths are preventable, in many cases with little more than good communication.
	The debate is all the more shocking and upsetting for me because of the case of Emily Sumaria. Emily went to my junior school in Cheltenham, and attended the secondary school of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), Cheltenham Ladies college. From there, she did work experience in Parliament with me for several weeks. I remember her as a brilliant young woman who had the kind of smile that lights up a room. Her mum, Rachel, describes her as
	“a bright, beautiful and funny girl with her whole life ahead of her. Her epilepsy was totally under control and she lived a perfectly normal life.”
	Indeed, I had no idea she was epileptic. She went on to get four good A-levels and then started at Leeds university, but she never graduated.
	On 4 December 2012, Emily was found dead in her bed by her university housemates. Her mum says:
	“Neither she nor I were ever told about the possibility of dying and had never heard of SUDEP”—
	sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. The explanation was tragically simple: Emily’s university GP practice prescribed the wrong dosage of her medication when she moved from her home GP, which meant that when she missed one day of her tablets, she did not have enough in her bloodstream to prevent her from having a seizure. That one and only seizure, after almost two years, killed her. Rachel says:
	“Knowledge is power and maybe if Emily or I had known about SUDEP then we could have taken additional steps to minimise her risk. This totally avoidable death has had devastating effects on a huge number of people. The ripple effect of Emily’s death has been enormous.”
	SUDEP Action, the charity which looks into sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, states that being
	“open and honest with patients about their level of risk, allows them to make educated choices as to their ongoing care and management”,
	but that GPs in primary care lack confidence with epilepsy, and that even specialist services “do not routinely discuss” with patients the level of risk and much more serious risks of which some of them may not be aware. One of the families who contacted SUDEP Action said:
	“There is nothing worse than losing a child but to feel that [our son] did not have all the information he needed to make informed decisions makes it especially cruel.”
	There is also an issue about information for bereaved families after death has, tragically, occurred. NICE guidelines state:
	“Where families and/or carers have been affected by SUDEP, healthcare professionals should contact families and/or carers to offer their condolences, invite them to discuss the death, and offer referral to bereavement counselling and a SUDEP support group.”
	Yet SUDEP Action says that that is not happening. It is aware of many people bereaved by epilepsy who find no specialist support and who are often left struggling to understand what has happened to them and why.
	In 2013, SUDEP Action launched—with, I am pleased to say, Government support—the epilepsy deaths register. It is not only an amazing research resource, but of enormous value to families, which the Government
	should be congratulated on supporting. It offers a means for bereaved families to express what has happened to them. SUDEP Action says:
	“The bereaved families are robbed of the chance of saying goodbye; of saying the things that they always wanted to, and didn’t. They are robbed of opportunities, future hopes and dreams.”
	The register is therefore an important outlet for the families:
	“It is somewhere to leave their story; a way to feel that the information they give will be used for the benefit of others for years to come. The impact of these deaths is not yet fully understood, but in our experience is captured by one of the families reporting to SUDEP Action’s Epilepsy Deaths Register: ‘The physical pain and guilt are overwhelming, and we are only just becoming able to talk about him to each other after 16 months has passed. The impact is total and devastating, and has affected both the physical and mental health of the whole family.’”
	SUDEP Action and families such as Emily’s are calling for better information. That means better information at primary care level. I know that this is a constant theme with GPs and that they cannot be experts in everything, but it is particularly important in the case of epilepsy because people do not understand the potential seriousness of the condition. There must also be better communication about risk that is communicated properly by specialist services and better information after death for bereaved families.
	We as policy makers have little power to offer much comfort to families such as Emily’s, but if we can take action that saves even one more life from sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, it would matter a great deal to Emily’s family and friends, among whom I feel proud to have briefly counted myself.

Andrew Gwynne: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing this debate. I pay tribute to her outstanding work to advance the cause of those who suffer from epilepsy. She will certainly be missed from this place.
	There have been 11 Back-Bench contributions to this debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and the hon. Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker), for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) for their considered contributions.
	Advocates such as the hon. Member for South Thanet and the others who have spoken today are crucial because of the stigma around epilepsy, which is almost unique. Epilepsy is portrayed on television as somebody falling to the ground and foaming at the mouth, as we have heard in this debate, with the treatment invariably involving an ambulance with flashing blue lights. Somebody with epilepsy may suffer a seizure only once or twice a year, if that, but will live with the stigma of epilepsy all year round. Sufferers would probably prefer to focus on talking and on tackling the stigma.
	I find appalling and completely discriminatory the case that was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall and for Easington of the Transport for
	London employee who was sacked. I hope that action can be taken to rectify that situation.
	I, too, looked online at Epilepsy Action’s very useful tool. I found that my local clinical commissioning groups, Tameside and Glossop CCG and Stockport CCG, had not produced a written needs assessment for people with epilepsy, or appointed a clinical lead for epilepsy to take charge. That point was made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, the hon. Member for Southend West and others. I ask the Minister to consider how we can ensure that CCGs undertake adequate needs assessments of people with epilepsy. It is increasingly important that local plans are drawn up for local provision.
	It is important to recognise that epilepsy care has moved from predominantly secondary care to being based more and more in primary care. That has positives and negatives. Clearly primary care is more accessible, and therefore easier to access on a regular basis, but on the other hand it is less specialist. Some professionals operating in primary care might not have the expertise needed to recognise things that would be significant to a specialist. Some things can be done only in secondary care, as we heard from the hon. Member for Wycombe.
	I particularly want to press the Minister on the issue of brain surgery. It is estimated that about 5,000 adults could and should benefit from brain surgery, which is the only cure for epilepsy. To put that in context, only about 3,000 adults have that life-changing surgery each year, so there is clearly more that can be done. Are there any plans to direct NHS England to increase the number of operations undertaken, to produce an adult epilepsy service similar to the one that, to be fair, has been created for children’s epilepsy?
	According to Epilepsy Action, there are about 30,000 accident and emergency attendances due to epilepsy each year. According to the national audit of seizure management in hospitals in 2014, 18,000 of those could be prevented by the implementation of a better care pathway for people with epilepsy. What is being done to ensure that all A and E departments have a clear referral pathway for patients presenting with a suspected seizure?
	There is a clearly a welcome focus on research and development in policy terms. The 100,000 Genomes Project is a good example of the potential for genetics research to change lives. It would be nice to see the project encompass more specialist research into epilepsy, because genetics research could have an untold impact on epilepsy treatment.
	A number of Members, most recently the hon. Member for Cheltenham, mentioned SUDEP. This week I, too, heard from the family of Emily Sumaria, who are in Westminster today. As we have heard, Emily died in her sleep while at university. She was bright and funny, with a lifetime ahead of her. Her epilepsy was to all intents and purposes under control, and she lived a relatively normal life. Emily was never told of the risk of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy, which primarily affects young people. The worst that she feared would happen if she had a seizure was that she would have her driving licence removed. Her mother is certain that if she had been told of the risk, she could have taken the necessary precautions and made the necessary adjustments to her lifestyle.
	Emily was simply given a regular prescription, and basic mistakes in the moving of her medical records from her home GP practice to her new one at university resulted in her new doctor halving her dose without her knowledge. In preparing for the debate, I found that some medical schools do not include SUDEP in their curriculum in any great detail. It is asking a bit much for young people to research the risks of SUDEP and precautions against it, given that their doctors will themselves often not be fully aware of the details. I suspect that the inclusion of SUDEP, epilepsy deaths and epilepsy risks in the programme at medical schools would help to change that. Perhaps the Minister will give his thoughts on whether that could be brought to the attention of medical schools.
	The Opposition have said that we will give every patient full ownership of their medical data; they would be able to share the data with whichever organisations they saw fit. We hope that with more people taking control of their data, we will be able to establish more data-driven research projects. I doubt that a patient suffering from epilepsy would object to their data being used to develop a cure, but the point is that they would have to give consent for the data to be used in that manner. Data would be more free and research would be immeasurably improved, but the final say would go to the patient.
	Let me finish on a positive note, because I am optimistic about the future. Epilepsy research is going from strength to strength, and we are making improvements in treatment, with pharmaceuticals and surgery providing hopeful prospects of a cure. I looked at the NHS Choices website before this debate, and 17 clinical trials are recruiting now in the UK with the aim of advancing our knowledge about the condition. I thank hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, especially the hon. Member for South Thanet whom I wish well for the future.

Norman Lamb: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) who has worked with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan). Together they present a powerful case, and I join everyone in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet for everything she has done in this Parliament. She will be very much missed, and her case today was all the more powerful because she has epilepsy and can speak with authenticity. What she said about stigma is right—I see it often in mental health, and it is exactly the same issue in this debate. The fact that not long ago someone with epilepsy could not marry is an extraordinary reminder of what we have been up against. This debate is timely and gives everyone the chance to focus on the condition and on how we can improve the lives of those who have epilepsy. I am pleased that the baton will be passed to the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who I am sure will ably continue to articulate the case for people who suffer from epilepsy.
	The debate has been marked by reference to two tragedies involving young people, and my hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Steve Baker) and for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) spoke incredibly movingly
	about the dreadful cases involving Jessica and Emily. We will all agree that we owe it to those two girls to do everything we can to improve the experience of people with epilepsy, and to avoid tragedies of that sort happening. It is important to raise awareness, not only among the public but among clinicians, of the condition and how best to respond to it.
	I pay tribute to the work of organisations involved in campaigning and research into epilepsy. The Epilepsy Society is based in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, and Epilepsy Action in Leeds is close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). Young Epilepsy has also been mentioned, as has the important work done by SUDEP Action. I remember meeting its members when they were establishing the register, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham made clear, it has the potential to provide incredibly rich data and evidence to help us understand why sudden unexpected deaths occur, and how we can prevent them from occurring in the future. All those organisations are doing incredibly important work.
	The hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned discrimination. They will understand that I cannot comment on an individual case—I am an ex-lawyer and cautious about these things—but the important point about combating disability discrimination, including for epilepsy, cannot be overstated. Where there has been discrimination, it is incredibly important that there are consequences and that lessons are learned to avoid such things happening in the future.
	I cannot begin to do justice to all the important points raised in this debate, so I undertake to write to all hon. Members who have taken part and to respond on important points such as co-commissioning laser ablation treatment, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, as well as many other issues.

Kate Hoey: When he leaves the Chamber today, will the Minister or one of his staff at least make a telephone call to get some more information about this young woman and London Underground’s behaviour?

Norman Lamb: I am certainly happy to explore that, although the hon. Lady will understand why I cannot get involved in the case.
	The Government are committed to securing high-quality outcomes for people in England living with epilepsy, whose number is currently estimated at more than 450,000. There are many different types of epilepsy seizure, and although some patients have the condition from birth, others become epileptic later in life. For the majority of people with epilepsy, the condition can be well managed—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West talked about the experience of people in Leeds and the excellent care provided by hospitals there—and they can lead independent and healthy lives. As such, the provision of services for these patients is the responsibility of local commissioners, who are best placed to manage services for local populations. It is critical, however, that those who require more specialised care can access the right services and treatments, which
	is why NHS England commissions such services nationally. That need not be undermined by co-commissioning with local areas.
	The Government recognise the importance of ensuring that patients with suspected epilepsy are diagnosed swiftly and accurately. As most people will be aware, seizures are the main symptom of the condition, and it is common practice for anyone who has experienced such seizures to be referred for assessment by a specialist. Neurological conditions such as epilepsy are part of the generalist undergraduate medical curriculum and a component of GP training. As such, GPs should be able to manage, monitor and appropriately refer the epileptic patients in their care. In secondary care, there are nearly 2,000 full-time equivalent neurologists, and for 2015-16 Health Education England has made a commitment to invest in 217 neurological specialty training places. In addition, specialist epilepsy nurses should be a key element of both routine and specialist neurological care, as set out by NICE and NHS England respectively. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) has concerns in his locality, but it ought to be part of the picture in each area.
	To support clinicians in the management of this condition, NICE has published a guideline setting out best practice on the diagnosis, treatment and care of patients. The guideline recommends that referrals for patients with suspected epilepsy are urgent, with patients being seen within two weeks, if possible. I think that the hon. Member for Vauxhall mentioned a wait of two months. That is not acceptable and should not happen, and the local organisations responsible for the delays should be held to account. If it is possible in other areas of the country, it ought to be possible everywhere.
	In addition, if seizures are not controlled or diagnosis is uncertain, people should be referred to a specialist service within four weeks. Most people with epilepsy can have their condition successfully controlled with anti-epileptic drugs, and there are more than 25 types of drugs with which to achieve seizure control. The NICE guideline makes it clear that treatment should be individualised according to the seizure type, epilepsy syndrome, co-medication and life style. On the point made by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), women with epilepsy wanting to conceive
	must—absolutely must—be given accurate information and counselling about medication such as sodium valproate. That is critical. I mentioned that the Department was considering the possibility of a red flag system, and I hope it will be possible to achieve that.
	For some people with more complex conditions whose epilepsy is more difficult to control, other procedures, such as surgery or vagus nerve stimulation, might be appropriate. Patients whose epilepsy is particularly difficult to treat may be referred to a specialist neurological care provider. In particular, children with epilepsy should be considered for specialised care at an early stage, because of the developmental, behavioural or psychological effects associated with suffering from continuing seizures.
	In conclusion, this has been an incredibly important debate, and I will do everything I can to follow up all the important points raised.

Laura Sandys: I want to thank everybody here and to ask the Minister to do something for everybody, not least the two young ladies we have heard about today. Their legacy is worth his doing three things.
	The first is to talk to NHS England and work out a pathway to reduce by 400 the unnecessary deaths caused by SUDEP each year. The second is to kick and beat the more than 90% of CCGs that do not have a pathway. That is not acceptable; it is absolutely letting down many people throughout the country. The third is to determine how best to implement the NICE guidelines and ensure that the pathway of long-term chronic care—
	Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Business without Debate

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Wednesday 4 March paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mark Lancaster.)

CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION (ROTHERHAM)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Sarah Champion: Exactly six months ago to the day, the report commissioned by Rotherham borough council into child sexual exploitation in the town was published. Professor Alexis Jay’s damning report catalogued failings of both the police and the council over 16 years, which resulted in at least 1,400 victims of child sexual exploitation. Still worse, most of those alleging the crimes received no support, no recognition and in many cases were dismissed, belittled or told that it was basically their fault. There has been only one major prosecution.
	I believe that what happened in Rotherham was predominantly the result of a culture that refused to countenance “troublesome” teenagers as victims and one that was prepared to tolerate the existence of sexual abuse—a culture where targets were more important than protecting children. The Jay report stunned me, the country and, to be fair, the world. How could such barbaric abuse occur, let alone go on uninvestigated? I simply do not have the answer to that question, and I doubt that I ever will: it simply should not have happened in a civilised society.
	When I managed to get my head around the enormity of the failings, my next thought was to get help from the Government. If there had been a natural disaster in Rotherham that had affected 1,400 people and the council and police had insufficient resources to deal with it, the Government would of course have intervened. I would expect a visit from the Prime Minister, national co-ordination of charities, Government experts to arrive and, as a priority, resources and support for the victims and survivors to be provided. To date, we have had nothing.
	In this Chamber on 2 September, I asked the Home Secretary for resources for the victims and survivors. She subsequently met me, and I discussed in detail what was needed nationally and, more specifically, locally—but no cash followed. On the same date, I asked the Chancellor for additional funding, and met a Treasury Minister on 10 September, when I handed over a proposal for emergency funding that I had worked up with my colleagues, the two other MPs representing Rotherham, the police, the council and clinical commissioning groups. To date, I have not had as much as a reply to that request, although after much chasing, I did get a holding letter dated “December”, telling me that the Treasury was looking into it.

John Healey: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case, so I hope the Minister is listening. To be fair, one small step has been taken today, linked to the announcement by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government of £250,000 for the commissioners for Rotherham council over two years, to reintroduce an outreach youth work project—a “risky business”-style project. Does she recognise, as I do, that that is merely 0.5% of the budget cut that the council must make in April, so it is simply not enough? Should not the Communities Secretary now release the troubled families and transformation award
	funds that have been withheld from Rotherham, because the council and other agencies need them to deal with the problems highlighted in the Jay and Casey reports?

Sarah Champion: I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend about the situation in which Rotherham finds itself. It is unsustainable. Like him, I welcome this donation—[Interruption.]—or drop in the ocean, as my right hon. Friend says. It does not go anywhere near far enough. I shall come on to discuss what resources we need as I progress.
	On 3 September and 19 November, I raised the issue of support for the victims and survivors of Rotherham abuse with the Prime Minister. I met him on the 4 February, and he subsequently pledged support on “BBC Look North”, for which I am hugely grateful. I am delighted that, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Communities Secretary announced £125,000 a year for two years to reform “risky business”. Without wanting to sound ungrateful, however, it is indeed a drop in the ocean in comparison with the resources we need to allow the young people of my constituency to rebuild their lives.
	I ask the Minister to recognise that Rotherham’s police force must pay for the intervention of the National Crime Agency from Rotherham’s policing budget, and that Rotherham council must pay for the Casey report and the commissioners from Rotherham’s resources. That is taking more money away from a town that needs more resources, not less, at a time when the Government have already reduced the police budget by 20% and the local authority budget by 40%. How, realistically, are we meant to cope? Why are the Government compounding the horror that we already endure?
	Let me make some suggestions about the sort of support that we need. There are currently only two child sexual exploitation workers dedicated to the victims in Rotherham. One is employed by me, and I am eternally grateful to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for giving me emergency funding to pay for that worker. However, that funding will run out on 7 May. The other is employed by Barnardo’s. She works only with people under the age of 18, and her work load consists of only 12 people. There are social workers, counsellors and police officers working in the field of child sexual exploitation, but there are only two people who are dedicated to supporting at least 1,400 victims and survivors. It should be borne in mind that 30% of the Rotherham abuse victims covered by the Jay report are over the age of 25, and most are over 18. There is only one worker to deal with the majority, and her role will end in two months.
	I want the Government to recognise that Rotherham needs specific intervention to allow us to move forward. We need a fully independent unit whose sole purpose would be to support victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation. It should have charitable status, and a board of trustees that should include representatives of the Crown Prosecution Service, the council, the police, survivors, parents and the voluntary sector. The money that has been pledged today could provide a seed fund.
	The unit would work in three ways. First, it would provide early intervention and prevention through a team of youth workers, survivor volunteers, family support workers, parent workers and health workers. They would deliver education and training to professionals and
	parents, carry out early prevention work with young people in educational and community settings, and provide awareness sessions for the community at large. Secondly, it would provide support and intervention for young people who were at risk and involved in grooming and sexual exploitation. That support and intervention would be delivered by a team of youth workers, social workers, police—police constables, and police and young people’s partnership officers—survivor volunteers and trained counsellors. Thirdly, the unit would offer one-to-one support, help with intelligence sharing and gathering, strategy meetings, and section 47 investigations. There would also need to be interpreters, policy writers and crèche workers. I see that as a model that could be replicated across the country.

Tim Loughton: I congratulate the hon. Lady on making this case and on all the work that she has done in Rotherham, although I am afraid that the problem of the lack of support for survivors who might come forward is not limited to Rotherham. What does she think about the negotiations which, I gather, are currently taking place between Rotherham council and Ofsted? In its “improvement offer”, Ofsted suggests that it should provide advice and support, although it failed to recognise the problem earlier, and something might have been done about it sooner if Ofsted had been rather better at its job.

Sarah Champion: It would take a great deal for me to have faith in Ofsted and trust it to investigate and, indeed, support Rotherham council, given the failings that it has demonstrated not just in Rotherham but throughout the country. Ofsted needs to be much more aware when it is assessing councils and individual organisations in the context of child sexual exploitation and child abuse in general.
	In the short term, there also needs to be a Rotherham-specific organisation that is dedicated to co-ordinating the witness statements that victims and survivors are asked to give. We currently have a ludicrous arrangement whereby the same young victim is asked to give evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the National Crime Agency, and South Yorkshire police. That is hugely invasive, logistically demanding, and overwhelming for young people who are still trying to rebuild their lives.
	We need a centre that can co-ordinate all of the interviews and questions so the victim needs only to speak to one person in a safe and supportive space. To facilitate this, I ask that the Minister funds a remote video link to enable a victim who is involved in a court hearing to give evidence from a remote location. That would help serve the needs of victimsin Rotherham, enabling them to link into court proceedings without the trauma of attending court. This fact was highlighted as an issue for victims in the Jay report. There are challenges associated with delivering the initiative and the provision of defined funding to progress technological solutions would be beneficial.
	To state the obvious, if we look after the victims and survivors we will get prosecutions. If we keep being demanding of their time as is happening currently, they will withdraw their good will and the case will be lost.
	Another short-term Rotherham specific request is a dedicated Crown Prosecution Service team to provide timely pre-charge advice and progress cases. That would
	be a team of four or five CPS lawyers plus additional admin support to manage current and future cases effectively. Initial discussions have taken place and the suggested team size and cost has been provided by the CPS.
	I also recommend that an additional independent sexual violence advisor, or ISVA, should be recruited, to be co-located with the public protection unit in Rotherham to offer support and advocacy for victims as they are identified. Alternatively, the ISVA could be community-based. The ISVA would need to be trained as a child ISVA and therefore be able to support both child victims in both current and historical cases.

Kevin Barron: My hon. Friend is making a very good case. On her point about the CPS, I dealt with a case in 2003-04 that is still being investigated. It was with the CPS at that time, and they are a distance away from the borough. To echo another point, within the past hour, I spoke to the father of one of the victims who I have been in touch with for many years now who had a meeting this week with the police and crime commissioner, but setting up regular meetings to try to sort something out is hindered by the lack of income because of budget cuts for the PCC and Rotherham borough council. May I tell the Minister that we need help to sort this situation out?

Sarah Champion: I echo what my right hon. Friend says. In the CPS for South Yorkshire and the Humber, the Sheffield CPS has seven lawyers, each carrying a caseload of at least 100 individuals.
	Finally, in Rotherham we have three voluntary counselling services trying to support all our survivors: Apna Haq, GROW and the women’s counselling service. Although it was welcome that Rotherham council gave each organisation £20,000 to fast track child sexual exploitation cases, that is only until the end of the financial year. What is needed is long-term investment to enable them to work with victims and survivors in an intensive way and at the pace that the victims and survivors want.
	In discussions with the police and crime commissioner, he has offered to be the fundholder for all the schemes I have outlined, as I am aware the Prime Minister was nervous about giving additional funding to the police or council.
	I would now like to focus on what needs to happen nationally. We know that Rotherham is not an isolated case; it already follows high-profile cases of widespread sexual abuse in other towns and cities. The sexual exploitation of vulnerable teenagers is happening across the country. It is of grave concern that our statutory services are not in a fit position to respond consistently and convincingly. In addition, there is a serious shortfall, and inconsistencies, in the support provided to victims of child sexual abuse and exploitation that must be urgently addressed, from disclosure, through the criminal justice system and into therapeutic support for those who need it.
	Research conducted in 2009, currently being updated by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, found there was a shortfall in therapeutic support for victims of sexual abuse of more than 50,000 places a year, a huge gap between need and service provision. Victims are subject to a postcode lottery with
	only one support programme for every 25,000 children in the UK. The 508 services that are available are so overstretched they are now being forced to stop taking on new cases.
	On Monday, the shadow Home Secretary committed a Labour Government to creating a dedicated child protection unit. I urge the Government to do the same. This topic should be not about politics but about doing the best for our children. I would like propose a five-point plan to tackle child sexual exploitation nationally. The first is the establishment of a national taskforce for organised child sexual exploitation, based on a similar model to the forced marriage unit or the modern day slavery commissioner. That would be a small, dedicated team of experts in policing, prosecuting and psychological support that can be used as a resource by police forces, councils and the voluntary sector if they suspect organised child sexual exploitation. If that taskforce had existed when the Jay report came out six months ago, the police and the council could have immediately had specialist support on how to work with the victims; best practice in securing prosecutions; setting up a dedicated investigation team; and how to manage communications.
	In reality, the police and the council have been left to flounder for six months, learning by their mistakes rather than being supported through an intensely difficult time. When the Jay report clearly identified failings with the police and the council, why did not the Government offer immediate support? I welcome the intervention of commissioners now, but why could they not have been brought in much earlier, avoiding some of the mistakes that have been allowed to happen?
	My second point is that we should introduce mandatory personal, social, health and economic education for key stage 1 children. This is about teaching children not about sex, but about what is, and is not, a healthy relationship. We need to give our children the tools to arm themselves against abuse, not leave them to discover the horrors of the internet and, in the absence of proper education, be forced to consider what they see there to be normal.
	I would also like the Government to make it mandatory for anyone employed to work with children to have training in spotting the signs of child abuse and how to report concerns.
	Fourthly, I am tired of professionals being more concerned about protecting data than about protecting the child. The Government need to send out a clear signal that there will be penalties if health and education services, local authorities and the police do not share information to prevent child abuse.
	Finally, we need a culture where victims of child abuse are believed. In Rotherham, victims were trying to report their abuse for decades. They repeatedly had doors shut in their faces and were branded prostitutes, worthless or complicit. I say to the Minister that that culture has to change. It is slowly changing in cases of rape and domestic violence; it needs to quickly change in the case of child abuse.

Lynne Featherstone: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and
	congratulate her on securing this debate on such an important issue. Her continued dedication to addressing child sexual exploitation, both in Rotherham, alongside the police and local agencies, and nationally, in partnership with Barnardo’s, is to be applauded. As she is aware, I wholeheartedly agree that the failures identified by Professor Jay’s report are grave indeed. What happened in Rotherham was a complete dereliction of duty.
	Shockingly, Louise Casey’s report of 4 February shows that, even since the Jay report, the council and its local partners have continued to deny the scale of the problem, highlighting
	“past and present failures to accept, understand and combat the issue of Child Sexual Exploitation, resulting in a lack of support for victims and insufficient action against known perpetrators.”
	Louise Casey’s report is a disturbing account of “a council in denial”. It concludes that Rotherham council is not fit for purpose and failing to comply with the statutory best value duty, and that it needs a fresh start.
	Separately, the Independent Police Complaints Commission announced in November that it is investigating the conduct of South Yorkshire police officers in relation to their handling of reported child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. That is in response to Professor Alexis Jay’s review, and I am pleased that South Yorkshire police have committed to fully co-operate with the investigation.
	The hon. Lady has raised a number of issues and I undertake to get back to her on any that I am not able to respond to during the course of this debate. I appreciate many of her suggestions and she will understand if they do not automatically become part of the Government’s programme, but I undertake to report all of them back to the Home Secretary, who is committed to this issue.

John Healey: Troubled families?

Lynne Featherstone: In a moment.
	The Government have taken immediate action to protect children in Rotherham. We have appointed Malcolm Newsam—one of the country’s most experienced experts in children’s services improvement—to oversee the initial changes needed. In addition, following the publication of Louise Casey’s report, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Sate for Communities and Local Government announced his intention to appoint a team of commissioners who will exercise functions of the authority and oversee a rigorous programme of improvement to bring about the essential changes in culture and ensure there is effective and accountable political and officer leadership in future. My right hon. Friend has today issued directions in order to exercise those intervention powers in Rotherham.
	In parallel, the Secretary of State for Education asked Isabelle Trowler, the chief social worker for children and families, to undertake a swift piece of work drawing out the social work and leadership lessons for local authorities and local safeguarding children boards from the Rotherham report. Isabelle concluded that the social work response in Rotherham was weak.
	To address the need for urgent improvements in Rotherham and elsewhere, the Secretary of State for Education has announced a new programme of work focused on practice leadership of child and family social work, and the development of new teaching
	partnership arrangements to improve the quality of initial education and tie initial training into professional practice.
	The National Crime Agency has also launched an independent two-stage investigation into child sexual exploitation and abuse in Rotherham—Operation Stovewood —following a request from South Yorkshire’s chief constable. The Ministry of Justice has provided a 50% increase in the funding provided to the three rape support centres that operate in South Yorkshire. There is undoubtedly more to be done for the victims in Rotherham, and more to be done to minimise the risk of such terrible events occurring in Rotherham or anywhere else in the future.
	Unfortunately child sexual exploitation of the extent seen in Rotherham is far from unique. We need to confront these failures at national level, and this Government are committed to doing so. I am sure that the next Government will be also be committed to doing so.

Tim Loughton: When I was a Minister in the Department for Education—and when I occupied the ministerial role that you have also occupied, Madam Deputy Speaker —we would send in officials to make an intervention, and it was crucial that there were civil servants and Ministers in the Department who understood the nature of the problem and could oversee the data that were being brought back to them. Given that this responsibility now rests with the Home Office and that the chief social worker is accountable to the Department for Education, is the Minister confident that she has the necessary officials and time to ensure that the people overseeing what is going on in Rotherham know what they are looking for and can see the job through properly?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need that kind of hands-on experience in both Departments as well as co-ordination between them, because we do not want anyone falling through the holes or not recognising what needs to be done.
	Louise Casey’s report also describes how a small youth project, Risky Business, had developed a ground-breaking approach to reaching out to victims of sexual exploitation and to collecting evidence about perpetrators. Unfortunately, misguided and inappropriate decisions made by the council resulted in the closure of the service. The report concludes:
	“The critical work they undertook is now missing from RMBC.”
	That situation should not continue, and the victims of historical child sexual exploitation should be given the help they need. Accordingly, subject to being provided with an appropriate business case demonstrating value for money, I am prepared to make available £250,000 over the next two financial years for a Risky Business-style service to be established.

Sarah Champion: As I said in my speech, I am extremely grateful for that, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and I have both pointed out, £125,000 a year is a drop in the ocean. It will pay for four workers and an office. I am really hoping, therefore, that the Minister is about to tell us that she will make available more Government support for the victims and survivors.

Lynne Featherstone: I understand the hon. Lady’s anxiety and need. When someone knows a situation as closely as she knows this one, they can see all the answers and they want something right now, and a lot of it—[Interruption.] Indeed, it would be for the victims.
	The Home Secretary has led a series of meetings with her Secretary of State colleagues to consider what more we as a Government can do to help to prevent these failures from happening again. Those meetings have focused on the issues highlighted in Rotherham: the complete failure of local leadership; the culture of inaction and denial in the police and the council; the failure of local agencies to work together to protect children; and the lack of support for survivors. A report on the action to address each of those issues will be published shortly. A key part of that response will recognise the need for further support for victims from statutory and non-statutory support services, and for their engagement with the criminal justice system.
	Effective, timely support for victims of child sexual abuse is a matter of national importance and it is one that this Government have prioritised. We have put rape support centres on a secure financial footing, by providing more than £4.4 million a year to 86 organisations across England and Wales that provide support to women and girl victims of rape and sexual violence. That funding is targeted at women and teenage girls who have been the victim of rape or sexual abuse; whether as a result of a recent attack or of historical abuse. We have funded a further 15 new rape support centres in areas that were lacking specialised support—13 centres were brought into existence by June 2014, and the final two centres, located in Grantham and Crawley, were commissioned by the Ministry of Justice in September 2014 and will be open during 2015.

Sarah Champion: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Lynne Featherstone: I will but I may not get to the end of the list of support we are giving.

Sarah Champion: I hope that the Minister realises that rape is a completely different crime from child sexual exploitation and grooming.

Lynne Featherstone: I do recognise that, but these services all relate to sexual violence. On rape and sexual violence, young women may come to those clinics as a result of what has happened to them, so there is some overlap between child sexual exploitation and sexual violence against teenage girls.
	We recognised the gap in services supporting men and boys and, as a result, launched a fund dedicated to supporting male victims of rape and sexual violence of more than £600,000 over two years. We have awarded a further £400,000 over two years to Survivors UK to help it create the first ever national website to provide online support service for male survivors of rape and sexual abuse. We have funded a network of independent sexual violence advisers at a cost £1.7 million per year to part-fund 87 ISVAs to provide appropriate and independent support for victims. We have funded a network of 13 young people’s advocates, at a cost of £400,000 per year, who provide direct and dedicated
	support to young people who have been victims of, or are at risk of, sexual and domestic violence and/or sexual exploitation.
	We do, however, recognise that there is a need for an uplift to these services. In the past two years a 40% increase in child sexual offences has been recorded by the police, leading to significant increases in the demand for support for survivors. The large increase in the number of victims reporting child sexual abuse and exploitation to the police, and other bodies, has resulted in a significant demand. That is why we agreed in December an immediate uplift in non-statutory sector support to victims of child sexual abuse of £7 million. That fund was split between an immediate uplift of £2.15 million to the 84 existing rape support centres; a £2 million fund to non-statutory organisations, which are reporting an increase in demand as a direct result of the announcement of the child sexual abuse inquiry; and a £2.85 million fund for non-statutory organisations providing support across England and Wales to help meet the increased demand on those services. Tragically, this is happening right across the country, although Rotherham’s is the case that we all know best and that was so shocking. We will ensure that this funding is available to organisations supporting victims and survivors in areas where there is a high prevalence of child sexual abuse and exploitation, such as Rotherham. As the hon. Lady will know, the funds are being administered by the police and crime commissioner for Norfolk, because the chief constable there, Simon Bailey, is the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigation. The Home Office is also supporting that work, and bidding for both funds will close on 2 March. We would expect successful bidders to be notified by the end of next month.
	Let me deal with some of the specific points the hon. Lady raised. On the need for a remote link for vulnerable victims and witnesses to give evidence, the Ministry of Justice has committed to set up at least one remote, non-court video link in each Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service area by the end of next month. Although specific locations cannot yet be confirmed, there will be a site in the north-east region, which covers Rotherham, as well as in other locations in England and Wales. In addition, vulnerable and intimidated witnesses can give evidence using a live link from any other Crown court and most magistrates courts away from the trial court. It is recognised that that has to be available.
	I am way off Government message on PSHE, as everyone well knows. I totally agree that it does need to come forward but as we are very near to the ending of this Parliament, I hope that all three parties will come back with a recommendation for that. I have particularly to agree with the hon. Lady on data sharing. Like her, I started with an issue in my area, with baby Peter being the issue in my constituency, and in my experience and in all the serious case reviews I have read since then, the lack of data sharing at every point has allowed a gap for a child to fall through. As I say, I will report all her requests to the Home Secretary.
	Child sexual abuse is a despicable crime and this Government are absolutely determined to eradicate it. In the past, all too often these horrific crimes were ignored, but now child sexual abuse is rightly centre stage as an issue and we must work together to tackle it. I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate, and on all the passion and commitment she brings to this issue.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.